It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released...

page: 8
60
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by ollncasino
Could I hazard a guess that while heavy rain is a sign of global warming, a dry spell the year before will also be construed as evidence of global warming by the global warming lobby?

More extreme weather is expected from global warming, resulting in more (and mostly stronger) rain and more dry spells.


Melting ice, global warming, freezing ice, global warming, heavy rain, global warming.

Dry spell, global warming?

If it's not at the same time in the same place, yes, it can be a result of global warming.


Yet the models these assumptions are based on are crude.

Don't get me wrong. The global warming scientists who claim we are having more extreme weather and that it is due to global warming may well be correct.

I am not however so sure that their analysis and conclusions stand up to rigorous scrutiny.


Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

Daily Mail




posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Apologies if this has already been covered, but the reason why, as David Rose says "until today, it has not been reported" is because until David Rose made it up, there was nothing to report.

metofficenews.wordpress.com...



Not true. See the response by the Met Office to David Rose's questions below from your own link


You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,

Here’s a response to your questions. I’ve kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.”

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

MetOfficeNews


It would appear that the David Rose has indeed been using data that he and the Met Office agree is genuine.

David Rose asserts that the data shows zero global warming since 1996, while the Met Office calculates 0.05 of a degree's global warming over the same period.

The Met Office in fact has confirmed the underlying data, although I have no link to the exact data David Rose and the Met Office are both using, although it would appear to be that of the Met Office buried somewhere in here



It's the same trick over and over. The obfuscators intentionally choose a particular year as a starting point which had very high sea surface temperatures because of the strong El Nino. The average person is not aware of this and therefore are tricked into believing that global warming stopped.

An honest analysis would look at all data and look at trends without strongly priviliging any particular starting point, and the result is that warming continues and is compatible with the strongly believed theoretical and observational evidence that global warming is occurring because of human induced changes to the radiative balance.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Here is the lady in question,Judith Curry and her blog.

She may be right in a sense of how other scientists portray the data and the hype of global warming,but in my neck of the woods,I have seen change,hopefully just a temporary cycle.

judithcurry.com...-10180


Climate scientist loses faith in the IPCC A few years ago, I was branded as a ‘heretic‘ for losing faith in the IPCC. Now another climate scientist has publicly stated that he is losing the faith. Who is this scientist? None other than Kevin Trenberth, in an interview with theage. Excerpts: I think it will be less successful than the last assessment, and I think it will be blander – I’m disappointed in what I’ve seen so far. But Professor Trenberth believes too many researchers and too much ”second tier” science are diluting the report’s quality, and that science has jumped far ahead of the lumbering process. ”There are more people, it’s more diffuse, it’s harder to gain a consensus – quite frankly I find the whole process very depressing,” he said. ”The science is solid, but with a larger group it’s harder to reach a consensus, and updates every six years are just too slow. After the fifth assessment, we should push on with a different format.” ”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work,” Professor Trenberth said. Wow. Could it be that my faith in the IPCC process will start to increase? Mine seems to be inversely proportional to Trenberth’s. U.S. politics and the greenhouse



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 



If current science underestimates intermediate-term variability, then that means that actions to reduce the consequences of greenhouse emissions are even more urgently needed, because there is a chance that internal fluctuations will result, in the future, even more extreme circumstances. In climate and weather it is the "tail of the distribution" ---the extremes which cause harm to human civilization.

The obfuscators and denialists are exploiting actual uncertainty to falsely instill doubt that "if they are wrong about X, maybe they are also wrong about Y and since Y is uncomfortable, let's just pretend it isn't there."

There isn't any evidence that uncertainty about long term variability implies that the climate sensitivity to increased forcing (which is an indisputable observational fact) is less than mainstream science believes. What it is suggestive of is that the human risk from climate change may be underestimated because of underestimating the magnitude of fluctuations. This is not compatible with "drill baby drill".

Remember that energy conservation always applies and new mechanisms of intermediate term fluctuation imply transfer of energy from one place and time to another, the global properties of energy conservation still apply---and global warming changes the primary boundary condition between Earth and space. You can't just "work around this"---even if there is more internal complexity, the world WILL get warmer.
edit on 14-10-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kdog1982
Here is the lady in question,Judith Curry and her blog.

She may be right in a sense of how other scientists portray the data and the hype of global warming,but in my neck of the woods,I have seen change,hopefully just a temporary cycle.

judithcurry.com...-10180


Climate scientist loses faith in the IPCC A few years ago, I was branded as a ‘heretic‘ for losing faith in the IPCC. Now another climate scientist has publicly stated that he is losing the faith. Who is this scientist? None other than Kevin Trenberth, in an interview with theage. Excerpts: I think it will be less successful than the last assessment, and I think it will be blander – I’m disappointed in what I’ve seen so far. But Professor Trenberth believes too many researchers and too much ”second tier” science are diluting the report’s quality, and that science has jumped far ahead of the lumbering process. ”There are more people, it’s more diffuse, it’s harder to gain a consensus – quite frankly I find the whole process very depressing,” he said. ”The science is solid, but with a larger group it’s harder to reach a consensus, and updates every six years are just too slow. After the fifth assessment, we should push on with a different format.” ”With the links between weather and climate for instance – we know they are there, but the specific numbers need work,” Professor Trenberth said. Wow. Could it be that my faith in the IPCC process will start to increase? Mine seems to be inversely proportional to Trenberth’s. U.S. politics and the greenhouse


Trenberth et al believe that the IPCC reports have watered down the actual scientific best guesses about the strength and urgency of climate change.

Note that every iteration, on most results, the IPCC reports have been getting stronger towards pointing to human induced climate change and its future. If it had been unbiased, then the sign of the changes (as new evidence comes in) would have been random. However IPCC process is conservative and biased towards reports which likely underestimate the evidence for and strength of climate change.

Trenbeth believes that IPCC process is not agile enough to keep up with the science. This is probably true. It doesn't mean the IPCC scientific reports are full of lies---they are just behind.

Curry thinks, incorrectly, that since other people are unsatisfied with the process, this is evidence for some grand conspiracy to make everything up when in truth there is no substantial human effect on climate and won't ever be, contrary to vast scientific evidence.


edit on 14-10-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-10-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 

We had an extended minimum Einstien. Extended means longer. Which means your math doesn't add up.
Hardly surprising.

I know it is difficult to keep up with real science when all you look at is blogs and denial propoganda.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 





Curry thinks, incorrectly, that since other people are unsatisfied with the process, this is evidence for some grand conspiracy to make everything up when in truth there is no substantial human effect on climate and won't ever be, contrary to vast scientific evidence.



I agree.
The earth's climate will go continue on,with minor adjustments .
Before the industrial revolution,the climate has been influence both externally and internally.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Renegade2283
 


1 entire degree in 140 years!

No wonder I can't stop sweating!



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I don't think they will ever get a computer model that will show the future, in the same way that's impossible to make accurate weather predictions for many days, many things can happen during that time that will affect the weather.

So we are stuck we crude approximations of reality, even if the crudeness is getting smaller.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by auraelium

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by auraelium

Originally posted by onedering
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Global warming is very real. Stop listening to the propaganda of the oil companies and the Us government. One and the same entity..


It was the UK MET office(The most pro AGW organisation on the planet) that released this info , you dork, lol



Why are the people Pro-polluting the planet such nasty bullies who quickly resort to name calling and defamation? Can you answer that one for me? WTF is up with that?


and Pro AGW people dont do any of those things? oh ok my bad. Its sad that some people (like yourself) think that the whole carbon trading scheme proposed to counter supposed AGW is about cleaning up pollution.
edit on 14-10-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)


#1 You don't know what I think

#2 Sad you do not think there are ways to halt or slow release of carbon emissions. That is just a lie bandied about by the coal and oil industries. They gotta make a living pal. Follow the money and it don't all lead to AlGore.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I decided I would hop on to post this since it was released while I was sleeping. And it most definitely pertains to the topic at hand. So if it removed I will consider it censorship on a hypocrictical level,

Anyways here is the article.


Summer 2012 in the Arctic has been warmer than usual and NASA’s analysis, reported in the earlier article, was confirmed by the NSDIC as well as meteorological agencies in Japan, Norway and Denmark. The extent of Arctic sea ice, measured at the end of August, at 1.58 million square miles, was 30000 square miles less than the previous low set in 2007 and the lowest since NASA records began in 1979. Read more: www.digitaljournal.com...


So Japan, Denmark, Norway, and NASA say its shrinking due to global warming. Yet only some of the UK denies. I think 4 sources beats 1.

edit on 14-10-2012 by Renegade2283 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
What it comes down to is a difference in how the data is interpreted.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
So,if the Arctic is melting and the Antarctic is growing taller and thinner....

Will it de-stabilise the Earth's rotation?

Swing madly about until it comes back to the Equator,subsequently melting and flooding everyone's cellars?



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Ericthedoubter
 


It would have to be change in the mass of what we orbit for us to be affected. So the sun would have to change mass to affect our rotation around it. Also, the melting ice doesn't disappear so our mass doesn't change.

However, the distribution of mass on the poles is affected. Which could or could not have an effect on the orbit of what is orbiting us, the moon.

edit: Oh ya, global warming. (Just had to say that so my post doesn't get removed for being "off topic".) Seems that if a mod cant connect a statement directly to the main topic it must be off topic. However, if they thought about it for more than 2 seconds they would realize how it does in turn connect to the main point.

edit on 14-10-2012 by Renegade2283 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlindBastards
It still astounds me that people believe in the man made global warming myth. It simply is not true. It’s just a tax grab, that’s it. If it’s all true, then why do those purporting it fly all over the world constantly, live in giant mansions and drive big gas guzzling cars?


True, it is also a guilt tax. How many people feel guilt for just about everything these days. The recycle eco nazis that scowl as we purchase non eco products that actually do the job they are supposed to, instead of an inferior product, or for 'wasting water' etc. when in reality the main culprits of global pollution are developing world industries.

It is all about taking freedom from people, taking jobs and security from their homelands and sending it elsewhere. Filling the established lands with developed laws and principles with those of different ethics and foreign principles then making those native to the established lands feel bad for not going along with it under the guise of multiculturalism, creating new terms of racism and religious hatred for those that dare to speak out. It is nothing short of a calculated invasion that you cannot even have the freedom of speech to talk about on a conspiracy forum.

Looks like whoever is behind this calculated invasion has used the laws and principles of these long established nations against it's very own people.

It stands to reason that whoever is behind it is probably some sort of psychopathic narcissist with no respect for anything or anyone and only has their own selfish interests as a motive. Let's hope they are stopped soon and their evil deeds put to an end.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I know.

Environmentalism conservation is a communist plot Al Gore thought up when he was 5, as a way to pad his pocketbook and survive off the carbon emission scam in later years.

And "nutrition" is not an area of study but an attempt by the government to limit your food choices, the Earth is only about 6000 years old, rape doesn't cause pregnancy and evolution is another "lie from the pits of hell." I get it.
edit on 14-10-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   

It stands to reason that whoever is behind it is probably some sort of psychopathic narcissist with no respect for anything or anyone and only has their own selfish interests as a motive. Let's hope they are stopped soon and their evil deeds put to an end.


Hmm?

Politicians,then?



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Renegade2283
 





Then again, there are people who believe the Holocaust was a hoax and that we didn't land on the moon



Yes, they are ironically the same ones who believe in global warming.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Renegade2283
 





Then again, there are people who believe the Holocaust was a hoax and that we didn't land on the moon



Yes, they are ironically the same ones who believe in global warming.


You mean the people who don't believe in global warming right? If not then:

edit on 14-10-2012 by Renegade2283 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Just everybody make sure you remember that we all need this stuff called CO2 to live.

Its apart of the earthly cycle,the less of it there is,the smaller things will grow.

The more there is,the bigger things grow,including us.

Theres always been more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have pumped into it,since day dot.

Ask yourself,are we next going to tax cows farting,dungbeatles rolling poo around,or even us breathing?

Im not pumping all this gas into the atmosphere,so why should i be punished.

I don't drive a car,own a house or really consume much at all,why should i fork out money for me "polluting" the earth.

The only ones that are polluting the earth in the way of CO2,are the ones interested in mass consumerism and manufacturing.

One thing my Dad always mentions when im talking to him about this supposed global warming and carbon tax.

Is,how our dictatorship lead...oops i meant government leaders,can be truly concerned about it when they are buzzing around like globe trotters for functions on behalf of their people which accomplish nothing truly worth the energy put into it? Its almost like a vacation for them everytime they leave the country.

Its all a facade,ill probably never see another country,but these people get to go everywhere and get paid for it,whilst only seem to accomplish mostly negative goals.

What about all the sportsmen and women that do the same thing all for a score on a bit of paper?

Take the olympics for instance,they build a whole new stadium/s where ever it goes? it isnt held in just one spot so everyone can fly to one place.No,its go to be all over the globe with all this money and effort put into it.So us,the people at home can turn the channel over to something that isn't showing the olymics when it comes to that time of year? Seriously?

Why is all this energy being used for such useless causes,for entertainment only? Probably.

To distract you,whilst they pick pocket your wallet, rip off your security,swipe your dignity and most important,desecrate the freedom to live your own life.

Don't tell me your a green soldier or such! Your still the same person,you just bought into the con like you do everytime.Your all too stupid to change.

For alot of us,Global warming,climate changes evil brother.Has been a idea around for a long time,Margret Thatcher and her cronies where conspiring and carrying out global warming scams before you were even born,before you were even a twinkle in you Mums and Dads eye.

So chucking around these bogus graphs of bogus data that is well established,that is exactly what it is.Isnt going to prove anything,or convince anyone,except a certain breed of mindlike people that eat a bunch of crap daily and swallow it.

But,you turn on the screen everytime!

The gods must be crazy.

Cheers







edit on 14-10-2012 by BillyBoBBizWorth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join