• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

No global warming since 1995?

oh...so we should expect to see the Arctic and Antarctic pack ice to start growing again? the glaciers at Glacier National Park will be returning?

Greenland's ice will start to return?
 
applecorped said:
and if it does?
Click to expand...

If we've been working however-many-odd years making efficient alternative energy sources and lower-emission modes of transportation, then whether or not it does means little since we'd be advancing to technology that doesn't amount to burning stuff up.

What if the folks at the LHC are wrong? Should we stop them as well?
 
applecorped said:
and if it does?
Click to expand...

if the ice starts to come back, that would say something to me.

if Glacier National Park regrows its glaciers, then I will reconsider my belief in AGW.

100px-Grinnell_Glacier_1938.jpg
107px-Grinnell_Glacier_1981.jpg
103px-Grinnell_Glacier_1998.jpg
110px-Grinnell_Glacier_2005.jpg


but...its not. so who cares.
 
Last edited:
parky76 said:
if the ice starts to come back, that would say something to me.

if Glacier National Park regrows its glaciers, then I will reconsider my belief in AGW.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Grinnell_Glacier_1938.jpg/100px-Grinnell_Glacier_1938.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Grinnell_Glacier_1981.jpg/107px-Grinnell_Glacier_1981.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Grinnell_Glacier_1998.jpg/103px-Grinnell_Glacier_1998.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Grinnell_Glacier_2005.jpg/110px-Grinnell_Glacier_2005.jpg[/qimg]

but...its not. so who cares.
Click to expand...
What is that, Iceberg Lake? Or is that the view of whatever lake (Grinnell?) you see from the Notch in the Garden Wall?
 
OK, this is my first post in a Global Warming thread. I've never weighed in on the matter because I'm just not sure. I was pretty certain during my University years that there was something to it. I felt that as a society we weren't doing enough to prevent it. Then I went to a lecture by a notable Canadian scientist by the name of David Suzuki. He's rather well respected here in Canada and I was excited to hear his presentation. It was coincidentally around 1995, although I believe the exact year was 1998.
I was disappointed to hear him present a rather biased version of "the facts". He seemed to have already come to a conclusion not entirely based in the available science at the time. He was urging for drastic action. This seemed a little out of character and as a result I began to question what was held as seemingly shared beliefs.
Since then I have yet to come to a firm conclusion one way or the other. I realize the planet is warming but to what extent I'm not certain. I live in an area that was once covered in glacial ice several miles thick. There's no doubt we are in a period of global warming, but I have to question at what point are we and how fast are we getting there?
The change in recorded temperature over the last 100 years doesn't seem that dramatic when compared over say 500 000 years, which unless you're a creationist is still a very short time span. The rate of increase however seems a little steep. Unless I'm mistaken it's unprecedented.
But what sets the precedent? We haven't exactly been keeping track of global temperature for the last million years or so. We know for a fact it's gone through cycles of warming and cooling but we just don't have accurate enough data to gauge the current warming trend against. At least to my knowledge.
So we arrive at my current question. Why would I care? I live in Canada. I'm not exactly concerned about it being a few degrees warmer. Sure it would make the Summer a little less pleasant, but that is easily overlooked in the Winter. There's no shortage of snow or glaciers in this country.
Am I really to believe our current trend, as small as it is, is really going to lead to some cataclysmic earth altering extinction level event?
So what's the deal? Am I missing something here or has this just become an over politicized doomsday prediction I can continue to ignore by taking public transit and using stick deodorant?
 
3bodyproblem said:
So we arrive at my current question. Why would I care? I live in Canada.
Click to expand...

oh, as a Canadian, only good things are coming your way.

warmer winters, less snow, and some suggest the mid-section of Canada could become the new breadbasket of the world.

blue skies....smiling at ya.
 
So let me see if I understand this. A Scientist says there is global warming and you all praise him as a wise and astute and scholarly. Now the same scientists say mistake were made and the data was wrong and;

"Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."
Click to expand...

Now you call him an idiot. You warmers are a fickle bunch. Will you deny him before the cock crows 3 times???
 
parky76 said:
if the ice starts to come back, that would say something to me.

if Glacier National Park regrows its glaciers, then I will reconsider my belief in AGW.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Grinnell_Glacier_1938.jpg/100px-Grinnell_Glacier_1938.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Grinnell_Glacier_1981.jpg/107px-Grinnell_Glacier_1981.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Grinnell_Glacier_1998.jpg/103px-Grinnell_Glacier_1998.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Grinnell_Glacier_2005.jpg/110px-Grinnell_Glacier_2005.jpg[/qimg]

but...its not. so who cares.
Click to expand...

Seems to be no danger of that;
 

Attachments

  • N_stddev_timeseries.jpg
    N_stddev_timeseries.jpg
    54.7 KB · Views: 16
applecorped said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
Click to expand...

Not surprisingly, the full interview is available online, but it's the Mail's regurgitation that keeps being bandied out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm


Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
Click to expand...

BBC said:
There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.
Click to expand...

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
Click to expand...

BBC said:
Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Click to expand...

Why provide the full picture if soundbites are so much more attractive?
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Originally Posted by BBC
Question: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Statistically speaking, lack of significance at the 95% confidence level leads us to accept the null hypothesis that there is no difference and to reject the alternate hypothesis that the difference is significant. "Statistical Methods", Snedecor and Cochran http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPorta...&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ598316
This is the essential material always covered in the first week's lesson in any Introduction to Statistics college course.

Dr. Jones clearly states that the statistics are not significant at the 95% level, so there is no positive trend, period. There is no trend and the trend that doesn't exist is not in an upward direction.

"There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. "There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. "There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. "There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. "There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. "There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. "There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. "There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. "There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. "There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. "There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. "There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. There is no positive temperature trend since 1995. :cool:
 
FarmallMTA said:
Dr. Jones clearly states that the statistics are not significant at the 95% level, so there is no positive trend, period. There is no trend and the trend that doesn't exist is not in an upward direction.
Click to expand...

Good analysis.

WHat if we chose the 90% CI?
 
Why is nobody happy we've successfully started to terraform Earth to a warmer place? Glaciers are cute and all, but really. I thought People were First.


Farmland in Antarctica now!
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
Why is nobody happy we've successfully started to terraform Earth to a warmer place? Glaciers are cute and all, but really. I thought People were First.


Farmland in Antarctica now!
Click to expand...

Interesting point. This exact comment was very likely made before you, by anthropomorphic Ice Age creatures in what is now Missouri.

Much of Missouri at one time was covered by a giant sheet of ice. Now that the glaciers receded by melting---due to naturally occuring climate change (which is how climate always changes)-- that portion of Missouri is... farmland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom