Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[logger]

Interesting

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/

 

[RandFan]

Interesting

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/

Thanks logger. The following graph is awesome and everyone should bookmark it IMO. Per the article "eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade".

 

[RandFan]

^So met disavows it.

Disavows what? The chart? Source?

Didn't you read it? It takes decades to figure this out.

Can you see the trend? Can you see that it spans decades? Can you see that 8 of the hottest years on record were in the last decade? There is no mystery here. Climate change is real and there is no controversy among scientists that it is real.

 

[Travis]

Unbelievable, why does the press keep spreading this obvious quackery? What's in it for them? What's in it for the people who spread this malicious quackery, too?

Commonly accepted idea turns out to be wrong is like crack to the media. It doesn't matter if it is true or not.

Look at how we get new reports on the 11 O'clock news about every six weeks telling us Milk is great for us to drink, then instant cancer, then a cancer cure and then poison for children over age six.

And this report on global warming is more such nonsense. The only way for global warming to have stopped 16 years ago is if we somehow stopped adding excess carbon to the atmosphere over three decades ago. And I'm not aware of any great civilization ending calamity in the late seventies aside from disco.

 

[varwoche]

The tool who is interviewed in the article, one Dr. Judith Curry from Georga Tech, echoes abject nutcases like Anthony Watts of wattsuphisass fame.

<no amount of laughing dogs will suffice>

 

[Olowkow]

Climate change, like evolution, is a fact. Only the very hard core conservative argues against either. It's so démodé. The argument has gone now to whether man is causing climate change or not, for which there is ample consensus among smart climate researchers, denied by crackpots, some with letters after their names, generally.

In the case of evolution, the dispute among all but the most fundamentalist is whether natural selection is the mechanism.

 

[Puppycow]

I can report that global warming ended in August of this year, and that temperatures have been falling for a few weeks now.

 

[dc1971]

Good news for you libs

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

Why is it GOOD news for only a certain number of people?

 

[Caper]

So is the original data wrong, from the OP. Was it just made up?

 

[Tricky]

I can report that global warming ended in August of this year, and that temperatures have been falling for a few weeks now.

I believe this means hemispherical warming is ended. I understand that in Australia, the situation is reversed.

 

[Brainster]

It is considered gauche to refer to global warming these days. The politically correct term is climate change. And as you can see from the article cited in the OP, the climate has changed in that it has stopped getting hotter. Something must be done immediately!

 

[Damien Evans]

I can report that global warming ended in August of this year, and that temperatures have been falling for a few weeks now.

I can report the opposite. Also, the monsoon is coming, should hit Darwin in 3 or 4 weeks.

 

[Puppycow]

So is the original data wrong, from the OP. Was it just made up?

See post #10.

It is considered gauche to refer to global warming these days. The politically correct term is climate change. And as you can see from the article cited in the OP, the climate has changed in that it has stopped getting hotter. Something must be done immediately!

Just because the Daily Fail says something doesn't make it true.

The last remaining serious climate skeptic (scientist) admitted that Global Warming (and yes, you can still use that term) was real this summer. The only remaining deniers use tactics like cherry-picking data from arbitrary points to try to muddy the waters and confuse people.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

 

[Caper]

Is it true that the Artice ice sheets are shrinking, while the Antarctic ice sheets are growing?

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Is it true that the Artice ice sheets are shrinking, while the Antarctic ice sheets are growing?

Yes. The hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica is allowing heat to escape, when it closes the Antarctic will warm.

 

[Caper]

Yes. The hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica is allowing heat to escape, when it closes the Antarctic will warm.

Is there not a whole above the Arctic? If not.... Why?

 

[RandFan]

... the climate has changed in that it has stopped getting hotter.

The mean temperature of the Earth is warming and that is an empirical fact. I'm assuming you are posting tongue in cheek but I think we need to be clear about that. If we can trust science for questions like evolution then we can trust here also. Then of course I realize that many people like to pick and choose.

 

[maxpower1227]

Is it true that the Artice ice sheets are shrinking, while the Antarctic ice sheets are growing?

The two poles are not identical. The Antarctic is on the whole considerably colder than the Arctic. So while a modest warming in the Arctic can cause ice to melt, the Antarctic can experience net warming yet still remain plenty cold enough for ice.

 

[dc1971]

It is considered gauche to refer to global warming these days. The politically correct term is climate change. And as you can see from the article cited in the OP, the climate has changed in that it has stopped getting hotter. Something must be done immediately!

Yes. Something must be done.

 

[Olowkow]

I have attended lectures recently explaining global climate change, and for some reason have become interested in the motives of AGW deniers. I have met a few in person, and I find that each of those I have met so far also claims expert knowledge in other "non standard" theories of science.

In a conversation with a friend from Paris just this evening about climate change, he mentioned Claude Allègre, as a staunch believer that the causes of climate change are not known, and totally denies any claims by the IPCC.

I had not heard of him before, so I jokingly asked, well what other crazy **** does he believe? My friend wasn't sure, so I looked him up.

Gravity

In 1999, the Canard enchaîné, and subsequently several other media, published Allègre's claim, initially stated during a radio interview, that, if one drops a pétanque ball and a tennis ball at the same time from a tower, they will reach the ground at the same time. Allègre claimed that there was a popular misconception to the contrary, and that schoolchildren should be made to understand that two objects always fall at the same speed. The Canard responded that this was true only in a vacuum, and not in all cases as Allègre had said. The latter responded in turn, maintaining his initial statement. Georges Charpak, Nobel prize for Physics, intervened to explain that Allègre was wrong; the latter maintained his statement yet again.[6][8]

Then there is the matter of asbestos:

Asbestos In 1996, Allègre opposed the removal of carcinogenic asbestos from the Jussieu university campus in Paris, describing it as harmless and dismissing concerns about it as a form of "psychosis created by leftists".[6] The campus' asbestos is deemed to have killed 22 people and caused serious health problems in 130 others.[7]

This is the type of problem that those who claim that scientists are divided on the subject have to deal with. There are "scientists" and then there are climate specialists.