The 'pause' in global warming is not even a thing

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
it's pretty easy to "debunk" any evidence that counters global warming if you routinely apply +2 degree "corrections" to the data used or if you routinely exclude temperatures that do not support warming.
edit on 24-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
We know or at least have very strong evidence of the Jet Stream causing the polar vortex, due to the change in direction or flow of the Jet stream. This change was caused by ocean temperature change which was probably caused by over all global warming, whether man made or not. You see, just because the over all temperature of the globe warms, doesn't mean that everyone will experience higher temps...the earth and it's climate is much more complex than that.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   

the2ofusr1
reply to post by Kali74
 


What percentage is co2 in the atmosphere ? It would seem to me that it's only a small portion of the whole .If it had the amount of effect they claim it to have then life probably could not have existed in the past .Look at MM hockey stick and you see a lot of co2 by comparison to other years but we don't see the heat unless we are to believe that co2 decides it's going to hide it's heat in the deep oceans and that has a ring like it's colder because it's warmer .Many word plays but they all have this man made cause that I just cant see how they could .



Well to answer your question ill send you here its actually a neat site it will give you daily reading.They also have the highs from every year charted since 1959. But to answer your question a very small amount were about to hit 400 parts per million. this means for every million molecules in the atmosphere 400 are CO2. Most of are atmosphere is nitrogen about 78 percent while oxygen makes up 21 percent or between these two is 99 percent of are atmosphere.Argon is next it is about .93 percent of our atmosphere. So that leaves .07 percent for gases like CO2,Methane,,hydrogen,helium,nitrous oxide and ozone i think i got them all.

Now to your other point the ocean is definitely a heat sink. So im not sure the point you're trying to make are you doubting the oceans are getting warmer?



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



...what politicians do with an issue shouldn't have any bearing on whether an issue is a fact or not.


You do know that the "executive Summary" of the IPCC's AR is created, teased and vetted by "politicians," right?
Hence, "Inter- GOVERNMENTAL Panel ... ."



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 

Thanks for the #'s ...I understand that the oceans do capture heat and always have .The whole debate cant be looked at focusing on any one part and to be honest we don't know what all of the parts are or how they work to regulate our climate. One would have to have a PHD and even then one would be restricted in his/her own field . Me not even being close to having any mind near that I rely on others to crunch the numbers and put it in terms a lay person like myself can see . So my venture into this subject has been one of reading and looking at the good questions ...The big deal for me is when some scientist have been shown to have errors in them and they refuse to acknowledge them then that person looses my confidence and I wont even bother looking at their work . I don't need someone telling me it's warming outside when I can walk out and determine that for myself .

Just recently my thermometer said it was a certain temp ..I said bull and checked another one I have and I was right and that instrument was wrong . We see that even our instruments have some issues with them and we are constantly looking for ways to make them better .Then we see adjustments to temps being made to try and determine what the past may have been .All the while the warmist are saying the science is settled ...The models are right while they cant predict . Its cold out because it's warm .Oh and it's really warm in the south because it's cold in the north ....Too too many variables for me to get a handle on it but I keep trying to see ..All I look for is the truth ...peace



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 




What I AM saying, is that these lifestyle and technology changes should be made whether humanity is to blame for the changes or not, and that knowing which it is, is not as important as mitigating the effects. It just is not important to know, only important that we act correctly from here on.


Of course, if people didn't live in low-lying areas, they would not get flooded so often; if they didn't build "mountain retreats," they wouldn't be displaced by fires and mudslides. Same for coastal areas prone to tropical storm landfalls. Even so, the greatest areas of growth, and government assistance to growth, are in precisely these areas. Then, when an expected storm or fire or rise in river levels comes along, all of the scaremongers scream about "extreme events." These are mostly extreme because we dare them to be so.
Remember, insanity is repeating the same behavior but expecting a different outcome. If you live in a flood zone, guess what? Wonder why they call it a "flood zone?" If you live near a "tidal basin," guess what happens when a "tidal surge" comes in. We have more than 100 million people living in such zones and in and near active fault lines; then, we're surprised if disaster strikes, and look everywhere but within to find blame.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Just to give people a taste as to a topic that is related to the subject but goes to the heart of the matter IMO ..."The UK Institute of Physics didn’t appear to exonerate Mann et al—[ but rather specifically ans deliberately included them in its criticism]—in its report commissioned by the UK House of Commons.
The House of Commons issued not this original report, but a very different version with conclusions very different from those expressed in the original.

Some of their answers to the question….

[ ' What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research. ' ]
are….

1.The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ‘self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling. climateaudit.org...-18927 make of it what you will but there seems to be some chicanery going on even within the climate gate emails ..



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I feel I should clarify my personal position on the matter of where people choose to live.

The settlements which have grown up around rivers and coasts, and around other sources of natural resources (like geothermal heat, and the fertile land which can spring up in the foothills of some volcanic regions), sprung up in these locations, largely because they offered one or another vital component, which gave those locations advantages over others, as well as pitfalls.

As time went on, various methods were devised (in some places) to mitigate the worst effects of the downsides of the geographical positions chosen for these settlements. In the cases of rivers and coasts, defenses and water management systems appeared over long periods, combined with building methods which also reduced the threat to life and limb somewhat, and allowed people to continue to live and work even during flooding and so on.

However, modern building methods in coastal and riverside area, are not, in the main, any different than those methods used in other areas. Back in times gone by, river and coastal properties were stilted, built on raised platforms. But these days, PURELY to save money, properties are slapped together on a budget, and sold, purely based on location rather than quality of build or insurability, for vast sums of money.

Now, I am a person who has a love of the place he lives in. I have no false impressions about how much of a crap hole my town is, but I tell you what, I promised to myself that I would not leave it until I had either improved it, or burned it down and salted the Earth, and I TOTALLY appreciate anyone who finds themselves in that situation. The truth is that many people simply cannot afford to move away from where they live. Others move to an area for work, and have no local knowledge and no particular research ability, and so are shocked to see how close the waters come to their front doors, or worse, how close the water comes to the living room ceiling.

I believe that settlements which have sprung up near shores or riversides, ought not be abandoned. A people SHOULD love their land, their homes, their history and heritage enough to fight for it. That fight ought to involve forcing governments and councils, and building contractors, to agree government approved, and standardised design plans for the needs of the individual landscape involved. Uprooting an entire town, re-locating entire infrastructural systems, moving hospitals and doctors surgeries, police stations, fire houses, homes and families, these are not acceptable solutions, nor in any way practical. That would be neither appropriate for the needs of communities, nor cost effective, as, if what we are told is true, we can expect to see MASSIVE changes in coastal and river landscapes over the next hundred years.

A much better idea, would be to future proof at risk communities, by bringing a combination of traditional thinking, and modern technology to the table in dealing with these matters. The idea of constantly replacing a flooded building with another one which will flood again, is indeed, as you say, idiotic. However, a building CAN be built to withstand floods, winds, and a huge number of other disasters, and ESPECIALLY so, in regions which are prone to one or another, because they provide their very own test bed. If it can be done (and it used to be, so we ought to be able to do it now, and more solidly too!) then in this particular instance, it damned well ought to be.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 


Bascially the report says that the data can be manipulated and fiddled with, therefore can be challenged. This is absolutely true because of the complexity and amount of it.

However, countries like New Zealand have chosen to get past the bickering stage and to do something about it.

NZ Govt history on climate change

NZ's version of what's happened already

Increased temperatures (about 0.7 deg C globally and 0.9 deg C in NZ over past 100 years)
Reduced frost frequency over most of the country
Retreat of many South Island glaciers and snowlines
Reduced alpine snow mass
Sea-level rise (estimated 17 cm over last century

These are measurable things that have happened, I've seen most of them with my own eyes being a kiwi. Furthermore, being from a farming family we have definitely notice things like the reduced frost frequency as the land is where our living comes from.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 


I thought Australia had 4 seasons?

Dang it's hot!
It's hotter than hell!
I can't believe how hot it is!
Is it still hot? What's up with that?

But...humor aside, There is no doubt in my mind whether we are experiencing climate change. The only question is how much is man really responsible for? Playing off the last sentence, can we even affect climate sufficiently to counter what is happening with ANY degree of success?

As the tundra melts, a huge amount of methane will be released (think cow farts on a huge scale lol)

Given that the magnetosphere has been weakening (I think 15% over the last 200 years).
Given that the only thing constant about climate change is change.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Actually, since the big hot broke with the big wet, Adelaide has been quite lovely in the past couple of weeks



As far as what is causing climate change, I totally agree that it is up for debate. Man may or may not be directly contributing to it via CO2 emissions, but it is happening.

edit on 24-2-2014 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by markosity1973
 


Anyone who believes that our industries and pollutions have no effect on our planet need to leave this precious place. (and they are morons too)...



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by samlf3rd
 


Now that's a scientific approach! lol

My point is that just a few years ago a lot of the aerosols we were generating were thought to be of the greenhouse type. There has been some "reassignments" after further study which has shown that some of those have achieved the opposite effect.

The world climate is so complicated that we do not even know who all the players are, so to speak, let alone the extent of the effects. Only man's hubris would be such that we would believe we can "fix" it.

How much of an affect has the weakening of our magnetic field had? Can we even quantify that at all? I can guarantee that none of the climate models have taken that into account. So...if the magnetosphere has weakened by 15% in the last 200 years, exactly how much of the climate change/global warming during that period is due solely to man, and how much is due solely to the weakened magnetosphere?

The tundra is melting and releasing tons of methane into the atmosphere... Are there changes that we can make to offset that short of returning to the horse and buggy era? (which I might add would result in billions starving and a lot of smoke entering the atmosphere as people burn up all the wood in the world).

I do not deny climate change. I deny our ability to affect countering change to balance it. What we do not know about climatology is legion.



posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 10:57 PM
link   

bbracken677
reply to post by samlf3rd
 


Now that's a scientific approach! lol

My point is that just a few years ago a lot of the aerosols we were generating were thought to be of the greenhouse type. There has been some "reassignments" after further study which has shown that some of those have achieved the opposite effect.

The world climate is so complicated that we do not even know who all the players are, so to speak, let alone the extent of the effects. Only man's hubris would be such that we would believe we can "fix" it.

How much of an affect has the weakening of our magnetic field had? Can we even quantify that at all? I can guarantee that none of the climate models have taken that into account. So...if the magnetosphere has weakened by 15% in the last 200 years, exactly how much of the climate change/global warming during that period is due solely to man, and how much is due solely to the weakened magnetosphere?

The tundra is melting and releasing tons of methane into the atmosphere... Are there changes that we can make to offset that short of returning to the horse and buggy era? (which I might add would result in billions starving and a lot of smoke entering the atmosphere as people burn up all the wood in the world).

I do not deny climate change. I deny our ability to affect countering change to balance it. What we do not know about climatology is legion.
you have also got to remember that man's contribution to CO2 content of the atmosphere is something like .00003 percent IIRC. and that CO2's forcing is not linear. it does not continue up on a slope but instead falls off rapidly.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 

Another piece to consider .."A sceptical consensus: the science is right but catastrophic global warming is not going to happen
A recent survey of those participating in on-line forums showed that most of the 5,000 respondents were experienced engineers, scientists and IT professionals most degree qualified and around a third with post graduate qualifications. The survey, carried out by the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum, asked respondents for their views on CO2 and the effect it might have on global temperatures. The results were surprising. 96% of respondents said that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing with 79% attributing the increase to man-made sources. 81% agreed that global temperatures had increased over the 20th century and 81% also agreed that CO2 is a warming gas. But only 2% believed that increases in CO2 would cause catastrophic global warming.

So what’s going on?

Above all, these highly qualified people – experts in their own spheres – look at the published data and trust their own analysis, so their views match the available data. They agree that the climate warmed over the 20th century (this has been measured), that CO2 levels are increasing (this too has been measured) and that CO2 is a warming gas (it helps trap heat in the atmosphere and the effects can be measured). Beyond this, the survey found that 98% of respondents believe that the climate varies naturally and that increasing CO2 levels won’t cause catastrophic warming. wattsupwiththat.com...-103779



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

samlf3rd
reply to post by markosity1973
 


Anyone who believes that our industries and pollutions have no effect on our planet need to leave this precious place. (and they are morons too)...


Put alot of thought into that statement did you? See pollutants are a huge problem not so much CO2 but the other stuff we are constantly throwing in the environment. We keep dumping toxic chemicals into the atmosphere and expect everything to be ok. We have plants that look like a nuclear wasteland around them because its killed off every living thing around it but thats ok. We dump millions of barrels of oil into our oceans and cause mass extinctions we expect everything to be ok. We fish so much that we are again killing off entire species it will be ok. Hundreds of acres of rainforest disappear daily we ignore it it will be ok. Global warming is the least of are threats to the environment also the one we can do the least about.Actually pisses me off the all the attention the governments gives global warming but ignores everything else it will be ok.Quite frankly as a species we can handle warming much better than going into an ice age in fact most species on earth can so if we are preventing the natural cycle seeing we are overdue for another ice age id have to say im ok with that.See more co2 is good for plants makes longer growing season being able to supply more food. The sea level rise is not going to be near what they expected. If we were to enter an ice age just like before alot of species wont make it to the other side and who knows we could be one of them.

READ THIS

www.stanford.edu...
edit on 2/25/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Here is an allegory about "Global Warming"
and in the form of a childrens story as well.

The fox is the people making money off of
the terror that is incited and induced in
"fear addicted people".

Chicken Little likes to walk in the woods.
She likes to look at the trees.
She likes to smell the flowers.
She likes to listen to the birds singing.

One day while she is walking an acorn falls
from a tree, and hits the top of her little head.

- My, oh, my, the sky is falling. I must run
and tell the lion about it, - says Chicken
Little and begins to run.

She runs and runs. By and by she meets the hen.

- Where are you going? - asks the hen.

- Oh, Henny Penny, the sky is falling and I
am going to the lion to tell him about it.

- How do you know it? - asks Henny Penny.

- It hit me on the head, so I know it must be so,
- says Chicken Little.

- Let me go with you! - says Henny Penny. - Run, run.

So the two run and run until they meet Ducky Lucky.

- The sky is falling, - says Henny Penny. -
We are going to the lion to tell him about it.

- How do you know that? - asks Ducky Lucky.

- It hit Chicken Little on the head, - says Henny Penny.

- May I come with you? - asks Ducky Lucky.

- Come, - says Henny Penny.

So all three of them run on and on until they meet Foxey Loxey.

- Where are you going? - asks Foxey Loxey.

- The sky is falling and we are going to the
lion to tell him about it, - says Ducky Lucky.

- Do you know where he lives? - asks the fox.

- I don't, - says Chicken Little.

- I don't, - says Henny Penny.

- I don't, - says Ducky Lucky.

- I do, - says Foxey Loxey. - Come with me and
I can show you the way.

He walks on and on until he comes to his den.

- Come right in, - says Foxey Loxey.

They all go in, but they never, never come out again.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
There is 2-3 times more CO2 during the ice age than today.

Global warming should produce more rain due to precipitation, and the Antarctic Ice is 25% above normal. So this proves that global warming is a hoax.

That leaves the Sun which is the major factor for weather on Earth.

Now the Suns is experiencing all all time low since a few decades in sunspots. That leaves me to believe and well as many other scientists that we are going through global cooling, not warming.

One would ask why are billions spent for global warming propaganda. U would have to follow the money trail and discover it's for a global carbon tax agenda.
edit on 25-2-2014 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

amfirst1
There is 2-3 times more CO2 during the ice age than today.


Source please.




Global warming should produce more rain due to precipitation, and the Antarctic Ice is 25% above normal. So this proves that global warming is a hoax.


Define 'normal' and explain to me why Australia is experiencing a long term trend of less precipitation and why there are more droughts popping up all over the world than ever before.



That leaves the Sun which is the major factor for weather on Earth.

Now the Suns is experiencing all all time low since a few decades in sunspots. That leaves me to believe and well as many other scientists that we are going through global cooling, not warming.


I'm not going to argue that the sun is not a factor, because I believe you are correct on this point. It is one of the key drivers of climate change for sure. But it is not the only one.



One would ask why are billions spent for global warming propaganda. U would have to follow the money trail and discover it's for a global carbon tax agenda.


I have not put forward my opinion on carbon tax before, but I believe it's a sham too. It doesn't mean that climate change isn't happening though.

What I do believe is needed is some sort of incentive whether it be forced through as legislation or some sort of clever marketing campaign to change over to greener technologies. It won't harm us if we stop burning coal and use less fossil fuel because we have switched to say the promising new thorium nuclear reactors to generate our electricity.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by spirited75
 

Here is an allegory about climate change for you too

There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"

The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.

"Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd boy," said the villagers, "when there's no wolf!" They went grumbling back down the hill.

Later, the boy sang out again, "Wolf! Wolf! The wolf is chasing the sheep!" To his naughty delight, he watched the villagers run up the hill to help him drive the wolf away.

When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, "Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don't cry 'wolf' when there is NO wolf!"

But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more.

Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, "Wolf! Wolf!"

But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn't come.

At sunset, everyone wondered why the shepherd boy hadn't returned to the village with their sheep. They went up the hill to find the boy. They found him weeping.

"There really was a wolf here! The flock has scattered! I cried out, "Wolf!" Why didn't you come?"

An old man tried to comfort the boy as they walked back to the village.

"We'll help you look for the lost sheep in the morning," he said, putting his arm around the youth, "Nobody believes a liar...even when he is telling the truth!"

Just because there have been lies told (on both sides of the argument I must point out) it does not mean climate change, like the wolf is not prowling around in the shadows





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join