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.

 

White House: U.S. is cold because the planet is hot

page: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 06:42 PM
link   


The fact that you do not see how geology comes into play with regards to the history of climate labels you and paints a very poor picture.


Oh I but I do see how it "comes into play". I fail however to see why you think that it makes you a climatologist.



Apparently you are not too sure about yourself of you would be comfortable with your "pet" theory taking on skeptics. Apparently you are not too secure.
reply to post by bbracken677
 


I'd love for the "sceptics" to "take on" my "pet theory", unfortunately, they never seem to be able to retaliate with any reliable contradictory data. Please don't assume to educate me about the scientific process.



IE there is nothing unusual from the macro view about glaciers melting right now. NOTHING. There is every chance that within the next thousand, 10 thousand years that we could return to glacial growth


So what's your point ? Who are you answering ? Climate studies in favor of the anthropogenic global warming theory that base their research upon bohoohoo melting glaciers ? Or die-hard treehuggers who haven't done anymore research than you have, but think that melting glaciers are a big deal.



What I have stated repeatedly is that we do not know enough


I think someone needs to go back and read his posts. Because that actually sounds like a reasonable position. We don't know enough, that much is true. But the scientific concenssus, based on what we do know *is* that man has an impact. Now that may change, as scientific theory often does. Problem is, if they have it right and we don't act soon, our species is going to have a very rough ride in the future.



and the fact that these so called "sciency" guys are blaming it ALL on humans is suspect to the nth degree.


They are not, as well you would know had you *actually* done all that research you claim to have done. A sceptic is someone who actually informs him/herself on the subject that they intend to challenge. Barring that, you're just a guy with an opinion.



They never want to discuss how that is affecting our climate. They never care to include in the discussions around solar activity either, do they?


They do in most studies in fact, and had you consulted the links that I provided earlier, which adressed those very issues, you would'nt be making yourself look like a fool by making false statements about something you obviously *think* you know more about than you actually do.



So... Care to actually bring something to the table other than rhetoric? Seems everytime you dissect my posts I tear you a new one. I rather enjoy it, since you got nothin. No training, no experience, no scientific background.....nothing but parroting others who write what you want to believe.


Please do not assume that you know anything about me, or my background.
I see that you like assuming things. I've seen that for a while now.
I'm not going to adress the rest of your little rant. Shame you're too proud to be honest.
edit on 16-2-2014 by Ismail because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Hmmm.




Hold your champagne glasses high this holiday season, because the end of 2013 marks the 17th year without global warming.

This year has been trying for climate scientists and environmentalists who have been trying hard to explain away the 17-year hiatus in global warming and link “extreme weather” to rising greenhouse gas emissions — despite strong evidence to the contrary. There has been a breakdown in the manmade global warming consensus, and some even argue we are headed for an ice age.

In honor of the 17th year without global warming, The Daily Caller News Foundation has put together seven setbacks for global warming alarmism.

The top seven global warming alarmist setbacks in 2013




posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Everything that I have read has indicated that we should be in this ice age for another few thousand years, give or take... that puts the extensive summer melting of the Arctic that we have been seeing, well before it's time.

Which of the hundreds of climate models being used are wrong? See the last 10 year? What am I supposed to be seeing? Are you referring to the 'pause' that wasn't? Slowed GST increase a pause does not make.

Now as far as the magnetosphere, I haven't heard much about this at all. The only thing I can think of short of full pole reversal which is likely going to be pure chaos... I don't see how it relates currently has earth's rotation changed, earth's wobble, earth's orbit?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Since many do make this some political thing, it is not and should not be political.

Personally I do not totally exclude the possibility that man has had an affect on the climate. However I disagree with the extent to which we are blamed for the previously mentioned reasons. I also have serious issues with theories being floated that we can seriously have an affect on climate, in what we perceive as a positive manner, with the meager changes being espoused. I feel that they are not enough by a long shot and that the alternative is extreme to a degree that we would cause more issues (regarding deaths, regarding standards of living) than would be the case by doing nothing.

The earth is a huge and powerful system. There is a quote from one leading climatologist that (paraphrasing from memory) is along the lines of: "It is man's extreme hubris to believe he can seriously affect climate" (short of nuclear war, of course).
If you look at geologic history you will find that our current climate is extremely mild and favorable for humans. You will also find that that is not the normal case. You will also find that, given that history, we are bound to experience change. Change can happen rather rapidly, at least according to some indications (not fact, theory).

It appears that the freezing of the tundra, given some evidence, may have taken place in a very short period of time. To believe that climate change always (always is ..well, rather extreme) takes millennia may very well be fallacious.

The problem is what we do not know far exceeds what we do know. The fact is what climatologists (and not all...97% is one number, 44% is another) can accurately forecast given any model currently in existence is flawed at best.

Are you willing to sacrifice your standard of living based on unproven theory? Are you willing to bet your life, and those of your family on solutions that may cause more problems than doing nothing?

Case in point: there is a whole class of aerosols that were thought to be green house in effect, but now have been discovered to have the exact opposite affect. It is said that one reason the current model failed the last 10 years is, in part, due to the actual effect these aerosols have had.

So...I leave you with this: I do not believe we know enough. At one time our "sciency" guys believed the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Everything that I have read has indicated that we should be in this ice age for another few thousand years, give or take... that puts the extensive summer melting of the Arctic that we have been seeing, well before it's time.

Not at all...we are in an interglacial period. If you look at the history, we are at a point where either glaciation will begin to grow, or begin to recede significantly (as in the end of the ice age). The fact that glaciers are not ALL receding is telling. There are, as in any theoretical science, lots of thoughts on this, however the fact remains, we are in an interglacial period.
The standard thinking is that we will continue to remain in the ice age for quite some time.



Which of the hundreds of climate models being used are wrong? See the last 10 year? What am I supposed to be seeing? Are you referring to the 'pause' that wasn't? Slowed GST increase a pause does not make.

Which of the hundreds incorporate solar activity? Which of the hundreds incorporate the weakening magnetosphere?
Do we know how all the players in the climate play work together (no) Do we even know what or who all the players are? (I seriously doubt it)


Now as far as the magnetosphere, I haven't heard much about this at all. The only thing I can think of short of full pole reversal which is likely going to be pure chaos... I don't see how it relates currently has earth's rotation changed, earth's wobble, earth's orbit?


The first I have not read, so read with an open mind...there is much more out there, but the fact is pretty established.
As far as how it relates? You do realize the magnetosphere blocks much of the solar radiation the sun sends our way, right? A hole in the magnetosphere is worse than a hole in the ozone layer.....


www.nexusmagazine.com...

www.universityherald.com...

www.messagetoeagle.com...

Now...ask yourself: Which is having the larger impact on our climate? Man?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I think it should always be pointed out that the White house, and others are using this topic for political reasons, and political reasons only. Did they really need to tell the nation why it's snowing or whatever? Since when is the office of the President the go to place for the weather anyway? or any science for that matter?

As I said, this is just being used for political reasons, and one reason I see might be to gauge useful methods of controlling public perceptions and opinions. There are other reasons too, I'm sure.

Obama seems to feel now, that he is our authority we should go to for EVERYTHING. This isn't a surprise though when you see how he thinks of himself as a king.
edit on 16-2-2014 by alienreality because: added



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   

xuenchen
Hmmm.




Hold your champagne glasses high this holiday season, because the end of 2013 marks the 17th year without global warming.

This year has been trying for climate scientists and environmentalists who have been trying hard to explain away the 17-year hiatus in global warming and link “extreme weather” to rising greenhouse gas emissions — despite strong evidence to the contrary. There has been a breakdown in the manmade global warming consensus, and some even argue we are headed for an ice age.

In honor of the 17th year without global warming, The Daily Caller News Foundation has put together seven setbacks for global warming alarmism.

The top seven global warming alarmist setbacks in 2013




The main problem with this is there are a few things going on (see my posts...I am not a global warming alarmist, but on the other hand there is stuff going on we need to worry about...I dont believe there is anything we can do to fix it, unlike others)

One is the melting of the tundra: This is releasing mega tons (as in lots of tons ) of methane into the atmosphere...and I do not have an answer, nor does anyone else. Methane in the atmosphere is bad...very bad.

If this methane ( and there is little doubt) increases the average/mean world temps a few degrees we will likely see much of the co2 the ocean has been storing up.

You could say this is a double whammy. Ocean levels will increase. Weather patterns will change. What once were the breadbaskets of some nations will become dustbowls, but then some very arid areas will suddenly be receiving lots of rain and will eventually become future breadbaskets, so to speak.

So...what do we do? Plan and prepare or cry chicken little and slash our throats in a futile effort to prevent the warming.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 




Since many do make this some political thing, it is not and should not be political.


I agree it shouldn't, but it wasn't Al Gore that brought it to politics and the irrational hatred and credit lent to him is just that... irrational. Both sides would do well to forget his name, everyone else has.



Personally I do not totally exclude the possibility that man has had an affect on the climate. However I disagree with the extent to which we are blamed for the previously mentioned reasons.


Well, what else can it be? TSI has been on the lower side for quite a while now. Our current orbit and tilt should be giving us mild winters and summers, solar activity has been on the lower side, we're still in ice age, nothing catastrophic has happened that should be giving us rapid climate change. Now, we do KNOW that greenhouse gasses trap heat energy and we do KNOW that CO2 has increased dramatically and methane now is beginning to increase as well. Now adding in the magnetosphere bit, 15% decrease over 200 years is it? The timing is accurate, if that's indeed what's happening but how does it affect climate?



I also have serious issues with theories being floated that we can seriously have an affect on climate, in what we perceive as a positive manner, with the meager changes being espoused.


Sadly, I think you might be right... but I'd rather air on the optimistic side here and hope that climate sensitivity is much higher than estimated so that these meager measures might actually be quite effective.



The earth is a huge and powerful system. There is a quote from one leading climatologist that (paraphrasing from memory) is along the lines of: "It is man's extreme hubris to believe he can seriously affect climate" (short of nuclear war, of course).


If that's Dr. Roy Spencer and I believe I'm correct on that, how is he deemed a leading climatologist?



If you look at geologic history you will find that our current climate is extremely mild and favorable for humans. You will also find that that is not the normal case. You will also find that, given that history, we are bound to experience change. Change can happen rather rapidly, at least according to some indications (not fact, theory).


You're right it's not normal for the earth... is there a normal for the earth? I think there's a normal for ages... anyway, the age before the industrial should have lasted another few thousand years barring an asteroid or super volcano, the sun getting bigger, us getting closer yadda, yadda. Could we have survived that eventual change thousands of years down the road? I have no idea, probably we'd have adapted over the generations.



Are you willing to sacrifice your standard of living based on unproven theory? Are you willing to bet your life, and those of your family on solutions that may cause more problems than doing nothing?


Personally? Absolutely, but I don't get to decide for everyone and that's for the best even if it means we die off. However I don't think it need be that dramatic. We either go back to horse and buggy or we die? Nah. We only only need to stop with the burning of fossil fuels and luckily for us, we're learning how to without sacrificing all our wonderful technology and comforts. Just imagine though if this argument hadn't been raging for 30 years, how much closer would we be to achieving that?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Still going through your post, but caught this early on and I or you may need some clarification:




Now adding in the magnetosphere bit, 15% decrease over 200 years is it? The timing is accurate, if that's indeed what's happening but how does it affect climate?


The timing is accurate about what? Surely you are not suggesting that man is responsible (there is no possible way) for the magnetosphere? Pollutants would not affect it whatsoever. That's equivalent to saying man is responsible for variations in solar activity...ain't gonna happen, so I hope that was not what you meant. I suspect you mean in relation to climate change as seen over the last 200 years? Not sure that by itself could account for that, but then again, what we do not know is legion.

How it affects climate is simply this: the magnetosphere prevents much of the sun's radiation from reaching the earth and also protects our atmosphere, which is another factor regarding climate.

If more radiation reaches earth, the hotter it will be, not to mention that stuff like skin cancers will increase as well as genetic defects, possibly.




edit on 16-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: sub sun for earth...doh!



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


No, sorry if I wasn't clear... I was tying the timing of the weakening to warming.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   

AthlonSavage
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Why does it get colder when the planet is getting hotter?


It's the warming oceans, cold continent theory. Here's a couple pages from NOAA discussing it:
www.noaa.gov...
www.arctic.noaa.gov...

Another link, courtesy of the BBC, as the current weather patterns are having some pretty serious consequences there. I'm guessing they are trying to show how the bizarreness is global:
www.bbc.co.uk...

Some basic rules to help understand it:

Warm air expands (fat weak vortex).
Warm water fuels winds. If the North is warmer, then South of that is even warmer still allowing for a push up into the vortex over oceans.

Looking at this once the map loads shows the difference of what is happening over the oceans when it hits the churning mass up North and what happens over the continents. It doesn't normally look like somebody took a sledgehammer to it.
climate.cod.edu...



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Regarding my paraphrased quote, I honestly do not know who I gleaned that from nor am I familiar with the gentleman you attributed it to. If he is a clown, then I apologize.

I will however, include this quote:



There is danger in the exuberant feeling of ever growing power which the advance of the physical sciences has engendered and which tempts man to try… to subject not only our natural but also our human environment to the control of a human will. The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility… . “

Hayek’s observations are important because individuals who consider themselves the smartest in the room continue to try to capture the workings of the world in complex computer models that substitute value judgments and assumptions for facts and reality for the purpose of informing policy. When it becomes clear that model results don’t match reality, too often the reaction is not to admit the flaws in models; it is to explain away reality. That is being demonstrated over and over in the field of climate change.

The models on which advocates base their predictions of dread do not accurately replicate the workings of the climate system. Recent analyses have shown that the models consistently over predict warming and cannot account for the 16 year halt in warming. The problem is that the model advocates have too much of their egos and reputations invested in the models and climate orthodoxy to admit failings. Psychologists call this the Backfire Phenomenon—“rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept.”



This sums up my ideals rather nicely.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


That's what I thought, but wasn't sure. Thank you for clarifying



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


and now, finally:




Personally? Absolutely, but I don't get to decide for everyone and that's for the best even if it means we die off. However I don't think it need be that dramatic. We either go back to horse and buggy or we die? Nah. We only only need to stop with the burning of fossil fuels and luckily for us, we're learning how to without sacrificing all our wonderful technology and comforts. Just imagine though if this argument hadn't been raging for 30 years, how much closer would we be to achieving that?


I agree that more emphasis should be put on alternative fuels....in particular fusion, since that would be the home run that would solve so many problems....

Wind power is both expensive and limited in scope. Natural gas is a nice solution and the one that will dominate the power generation suppliers in the near future, but it is not the end all, be all...it is still fossil fuel.

Solar cells? Possibly, but again, expensive and somewhat limited in application. Possibly the 2nd best chance to make a significant impact but costs will have to come down significantly.

I do not get to decide either, but I do have a voice.

What we are seeing is not, repeat not, an ELE event even in the worst case scenarios. Those who claim otherwise are doomsayers trying to sway opinion. It will be traumatic, it will be, likely, the single most destructive event we will likely see for some time. However, our cities will not be flooded over night so there will be time to move populations and make adjustments. There will be issues surrounding food supply and that could be the single most troubling aspect. But then again, I make no claims regarding possessing a crystal ball.

There is always a focus on the negative, but the climate changes we are likely to experience will not all be catastrophic. There will be arid areas that will become as important to food production as the land we lose to dust bowls, so to speak. Things will change...there will be rain in areas not accustomed to rain and there will be drought in areas not accustomed to drought. Again, this will not occur overnight and man is incredibly resilient.

During the Ice Age man came pretty close to going extinct. They did not have the technology we have today, they did not have any knowledge of what was happening, they did not have the mobility we have today. They had virtually zero control over their personal environments.

Then there is always the chance that the whole global warming thing will not play out to the degree being forecasted. Perhaps the North Atlantic current will shut down and bring us right back into a period of glacial growth and we will have other problems to deal with.

While I agree with your last sentence to some degree...that makes the assumption that we actually have the control we imagine we may have. Who can say with certainty that if we had (not that we had the technology) substituted another energy supply for fossil fuels that we would not be facing the exact same scenario today?

I have often felt that our leaders should institute a Manhattan project kind of thing to work on fusion and / or other alternative energy sources. Seems that our leaders, as usual, fail us.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Regarding what is normal for earth: All I can say is normal tends to be much more extreme than what we are used to. So should we be surprised if our climate becomes more extreme?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


I'd like to think we're not facing an ELE. I just don't know how anyone can be sure we aren't. The methane thaw you mentioned could be horrific with 5-6C warming by 2200. I don't see how humans can live in that or grow food in it unless we've figured out how to build domed cities or underground cities by then and yuck who wants that anyway?

So I haven't clicked any of your links yet but I did read a blurb on NASA's site about this hole. Unless I'm reading wrong this isn't a permanent hole? Just that a hole appears when struck by cme's and opened wider that they ever expected it to. So obviously it does allow for more solar wind to enter earth's atmosphere than they thought, with obvious implications but without further reading up on papers and such I don't know how to evaluate the impact.
edit on 2/16/2014 by Kali74 because: Clarifying



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   

bbracken677
reply to post by Kali74
 


Regarding what is normal for earth: All I can say is normal tends to be much more extreme than what we are used to. So should we be surprised if our climate becomes more extreme?


Surprised? No. There's been greenhouse gas warming before. Should we pretend there hasn't been just because we are releasing gigatons of Co2 in the name of profit and progress? Should we pretend that we are so horribly stupid that we can't progress without fossil fuels?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Ismail
 



Ismail,

I hope you know (you should) that science is never settled by a majority vote. A true consensus does not have to be manufactured, it follows as a logical consequence when the nature of a phenomenon becomes self-evident. In a multidisciplinary field as complex and diverse as climate science, such a consensus can not and does not exist.

Here is my challenge to you. It's very simple to demonstrate that climate science is not yet mature enough to conclusively answer its fundamental questions. False proclamations of unanimity do not change this fact.

If that consensus, as you claim, does exit, it should be just as easy for you to prove me wrong.



MATT ENGLAND: Oh absolutely. There are people actually out there trying to say that the IPCC has overstated or overestimated climate change. This report shows very clearly that the projections have occurred.

SARAH CLARKE: So the forecast was of a predicted rise of 0.7 to 1.5 degrees, is that right?

MATT ENGLAND: That's right, and it's by 2030, so we're halfway through this projected period. And the warming to date is consistent with that projection.

And so anybody out there lying that the IPCC projections are overstatements or that the observations haven't kept pace with the projections is completely offline with this. The analysis is very clear that the IPCC projections are coming true.

Prof. Matt England 2012


Global mean surface temperature change is theorized to be one of the key indicators for a greenhouse gas-induced climate change. According to the theory, atmospheric warming near the surface is a first order response to an ongoing radiative imbalance of the climate system. In order to reliably attribute surface warming in the past and project future responses to increasing greenhouse gas emissons, climate models must be able to accurately and realistically simulate observed temperature trends.

When differences between the three data sets and observational uncertainty are accounted for, global mean surface temperature change is estimated to be between 0.04 - 0.07°C per decade for the last 16 years. The trends are not statistically different from zero. Climate models simulate an ongoing mean/best estimate surface temperature change of 0.2°C/dec or a likely range for the mean of 2016-2035 which is 0.3-0.7°C above the mean of 1986-2005. The inconsistency between simulated and observed trends is getting increasingly larger, with observations close to or already outside the 5% confidence interval.



The 'pause', and the inability of climate models to simulate observed trends, is discussed in chapter 9 (Box 9.2) of the last IPCC report. Only three of the papers referenced within the section are model-data comparsions, with a specific focus on either, the last two decades or the overall ability of climate models to simulate prolonged periods without surface warming.



However, climate models exhibit individual decades of GMST trend hiatus even during a prolonged phase of energy uptake of the climate system (e.g.Figure 9.8; Easterling and Wehner, 2009; Knight et al., 2009), in which case the energy budget would be balanced by increasing subsurface–ocean heat uptake (Meehl et al., 2011, 2013a; Guemas et al., 2013).

www.climatechange2013.org...


Knight et al. (not really peer reviewed, but that's cool) is a supplemental article published in a Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Note the date.


Do global temperature trends over the last Decade falsify climate predictions?

Observations indicate that global temperature rise has slowed in the last decade. The least squares trend for January 1999 to December 2008 calculated from the HadCRUT3 dataset (Brohan et al. 2006) is +0.07±0.07°C/decade, much less than the 0.18°C/dec recorded between 1979 and 2005 and the 0.2°C/dec expected in the next decade (IPCC; Solomon et al. 2007). This is despite a steady increase in radiative forcing as a result of human activities and has led some to question climate predictions of substantial twenty-first century warming (Lawson 2008; Carter 2008).

El Niño–Southern Oscillation is a strong driver of interannual global mean temperature variations. ENSO and non-ENSO contributions can be separated by the method of Thompson et al. (2008). The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C/dec, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the "ENSO-adjusted" trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C/dec, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.


In context of the statement in the IPCC report, ('climate models exhibit individual decades of GMST trend hiatus even during a prolonged phase of energy uptake of the climate system'), the corresponding paragraph in the paper states...


Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

www.metoffice.gov.uk...




The second reference (Easterling and Wehner) basically confirms the conclusions of Knight et al. While they were able to find a 15 year period with no significant surface warming in one simulation of a single climate model, they do not mention if periods longer than decade can occur in multi-model ensemble-runs.



Finally for the simulations of the entire 21st century there is still about a 5% chance of a negative decadal trend, even in the absence of any simulated volcanic eruptions. If we restrict the period to the first half of the 21st century the probability increases to about 10% revealing that the trend in surface air temperature has its own positive trend in the A2 emissions scenario.

The control experiment has an equal percentage of statistically significant positive and negative trends. The observations and the 20th century simulations show similar small percentages although the model results reveal a somewhat broader distribution. The difference may in part be due to the single realization for the observed record. However, for the A2 forcing scenario, both for the first half and the entire 21st century there are no statistically significant negative trends.

www.esrl.noaa.gov...



The third paper is Fyfe et al., 2010. Fyfe et al., 2013 is an update (commentary) to their earlier study. HadCRUT4 reconstructions are compared to simulated average temperatures only for locations where corresponding observations exist.


The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012). For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade. It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming.

Differences between observed and simulated 20-year trends have p values that drop to close to zero by 1993–2012 under assumption (1) and to 0.04 under assumption (2). Here we note that the smaller the p value is, the stronger the evidence against the null hypothesis. On this basis, the rarity of the 1993–2012 trend difference under assumption (1) is obvious. Under assumption (2), this implies that such an inconsistency is only expected to occur by chance once in 500 years, if variation might combine differently in observations than in models.

www.see.ed.ac.uk...




None of the studies above supports the IPCC's statement, 'that 15-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series', two of the papers directly contradict claims that model simulations of surface temperature trends are evidence for man-made global warming.


All of the studies above are included in the 'consensus argument'.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Kali74

bbracken677
reply to post by Kali74
 


Regarding what is normal for earth: All I can say is normal tends to be much more extreme than what we are used to. So should we be surprised if our climate becomes more extreme?


Surprised? No. There's been greenhouse gas warming before. Should we pretend there hasn't been just because we are releasing gigatons of Co2 in the name of profit and progress? Should we pretend that we are so horribly stupid that we can't progress without fossil fuels?


Exactly, which is why we should have had a Manhattan Project style push for alternative fuels/energy sources long ago. Instead it is all politicized in such a way that it seems the desired result is no progress.

Part of my point regarding the co2 warming of the past was to illustrate that it would not be an ELE event (at least for humans and most life) but rather a huge and significant change. Given our current technological ability you would think that we should be able to adapt provided we actually plan ahead. Unfortunately our govt's record regarding long term planning is virtually non-existent. It's all about the next election.....

When the Ice Age kicked in, it became close to an ELE from the human perspective, but we even survived that with no technology, no knowledge of what was going on and very limited mobility.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Mianeye
When did the US become "The World"?


1946



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join