Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[Guided Missile]

I know. I work for a marine conservation agency. You work as a pesticide salesman. The bias was inherent in the technique used then, but since the same equipment had been used for decades the bias in the data could be accounted for and corrected retrospectively. It also had zero effect on the trends. Incidentally the words you used in your post are almost identical to a wiki entry. How odd.

Read this paper and illuminate this discussion with your scientific opinion on it, although I'm guessing from your posts that your role in marine conservation is far removed from scientific one. Still give us your thoughts. A simple research chemist like me is just not qualified to understand it. It's not wikipedia but a paper published in July 2013, and a summary is:

 

GOHC estimates were reduced when the corrections recommended in the TG method and when using the CH method were applied. There is a significant reduction in GOHC from the 1970s to the mid-1980s, during which period larger corrections to Sippican T4/T6 probe types were applied.

We suggest that application of our time-dependent bias estimates on the global database be undertaken with caution, because a key result is that the pure thermal bias is substantial and changes in time and is very likely based on recorder type. It is unlikely that the changeover in acquisition systems in the research-agency-sourced pairs database analyzed here parallels that in the global archives. Thus, a more nuanced approach may be warranted in determining which corrections to apply to historical XBT profiles.

 

In other words the latest data suggests the the errors caused by the thermographs are even higher than those previously thought, but the authors just don't want to bin 50 years of crap data...

 

I would, though, as my research career wasn't built on bad science like your colleagues.

[buctootim]

Read this paper and illuminate this discussion with your scientific opinion on it, although I'm guessing from your posts that your role in marine conservation is far removed from scientific one. Still give us your thoughts. A simple research chemist like me is just not qualified to understand it. It's not wikipedia but a paper published in July 2013, and a summary is:

 

GOHC estimates were reduced when the corrections recommended in the TG method and when using the CH method were applied. There is a significant reduction in GOHC from the 1970s to the mid-1980s, during which period larger corrections to Sippican T4/T6 probe types were applied.

We suggest that application of our time-dependent bias estimates on the global database be undertaken with caution, because a key result is that the pure thermal bias is substantial and changes in time and is very likely based on recorder type. It is unlikely that the changeover in acquisition systems in the research-agency-sourced pairs database analyzed here parallels that in the global archives. Thus, a more nuanced approach may be warranted in determining which corrections to apply to historical XBT profiles.

 

In other words the latest data suggests the the errors caused by the thermographs are even higher than those previously thought, but the authors just don't want to bin 50 years of crap data...

 

I would, though, as my research career wasn't built on bad science like your colleagues.

 

Lets be honest JM, you're a formulating chemist - non reactive mixing together of powders produced by others. People do it with an HND, or maybe a third from Hull. Then you try and flog them as novel.

 

Re the bathymetry they're basically saying you cant apply the same correction equations to the whole data timeline.

Edited 27 September, 2013 by buctootim

[Sheaf Saint]

Well, you know what... All you skeptics / deniers (Daily Mail reading non-treehuggers or whatever) have convinced me. F**k it, let's just carry on as we are. Let's just carry on pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere while at the same time cutting down huge swathes of rainforest to reduce the amount of that CO2 that can be re-absorbed into the carbon cycle. Oh hell, let's just say balls to renewable energy entirely and put all our efforts into extracting as much coal, oil and gas as we possibly can. Because, at the end of the day, there's always another Earth right next door we can quickly re-locate to if you turn out to be wrong, isn't there!

 

Oh, hang on.....

[Guided Missile]

Re the bathymetry they're basically saying you cant apply the same correction equations to the whole data timeline.

As Oscar Wilde said, I would continue this battle of wits, but I hate to fight an unarmed man. "Bathymetry"...."correction equations"....hilarious.

 

Now, you must let me get back to "non-reactive mixing together of powders, produced by others...."

[Chicken With A Banjo]

Well, you know what... All you skeptics / deniers (Daily Mail reading non-treehuggers or whatever) have convinced me. F**k it, let's just carry on as we are. Let's just carry on pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere while at the same time cutting down huge swathes of rainforest to reduce the amount of that CO2 that can be re-absorbed into the carbon cycle. Oh hell, let's just say balls to renewable energy entirely and put all our efforts into extracting as much coal, oil and gas as we possibly can. Because, at the end of the day, there's always another Earth right next door we can quickly re-locate to if you turn out to be wrong, isn't there!

 

Oh, hang on.....

 

The burden of proof doesn't lie with the skeptics.

[Sheaf Saint]

The burden of proof doesn't lie with the skeptics.

 

Well yes, technically that is true. But have you not heard of the precautionary principle?

[badgerx16]

The burden of proof doesn't lie with the skeptics.

And there lies the problem - if the sceptics are right they all point their fingers and sing "Lah, lah, lah, we told you so", if the 'tree huggers' are proved to be right, your grandchildren are screwed.

[Guided Missile]

In 1894 the Times of London predicted that by 1950 every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure. In New York it was estimated that manure would reach a depth of three stories by 1930.

[badgerx16]

Read this paper and illuminate this discussion with your scientific opinion on it, although I'm guessing from your posts that your role in marine conservation is far removed from scientific one. Still give us your thoughts. A simple research chemist like me is just not qualified to understand it. It's not wikipedia but a paper published in July 2013, and a summary is:

 

GOHC estimates were reduced when the corrections recommended in the TG method and when using the CH method were applied. There is a significant reduction in GOHC from the 1970s to the mid-1980s, during which period larger corrections to Sippican T4/T6 probe types were applied.

We suggest that application of our time-dependent bias estimates on the global database be undertaken with caution, because a key result is that the pure thermal bias is substantial and changes in time and is very likely based on recorder type. It is unlikely that the changeover in acquisition systems in the research-agency-sourced pairs database analyzed here parallels that in the global archives. Thus, a more nuanced approach may be warranted in determining which corrections to apply to historical XBT profiles.

 

In other words the latest data suggests the the errors caused by the thermographs are even higher than those previously thought, but the authors just don't want to bin 50 years of crap data...

 

I would, though, as my research career wasn't built on bad science like your colleagues.

 

But what is their conclusion ?

 

GOHC calculations with and without corrections derived from the TG and CH methods. Also included are calculations from L09:

 

(http://journals.ametsoc.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/ams/journals/content/atot/2013/15200426-30.6/jtech-d-12-00127.1/20130613/images/large/jtech-d-12-00127.1-f19.jpeg)

Edited 27 September, 2013 by badgerx16

[aintforever]

The burden of proof doesn't lie with the skeptics.

 

Exactly what proof are you looking for?

 

Next year could be 10 degrees higher than this year yet you skeptics could still say it's not due to man.

 

We know CO2 is a greehouse gas, we know we have been pumping billions of tons into the atmosphere, we know concentrations have gone up and we know there has been a warming trend that ties in with it. If you think something else is causing it show us the evidence, give us your theory.

Edited 27 September, 2013 by aintforever

[The Kraken]

It's always been a mixture of man made and natural causes, if you read the scientific papers and not the Daily Mail you would already know that.

 

Scientists have been warning about global warming since the 70's and the ten warmest years on record have all been since 1998 onwards - maybe they were psychic?

 

I am interested to learn more about these scientific papers you have read. Please would you be so kind as to post the names of the 5 most influential science papers you have read in this field ideally with open access download links. I would also be interested in a brief description for each paper detailing why you have chosen the paper and why you believe the authors claims to be credible. Many thanks.

 

Arguments aside, I would be interested in this too.

[aintforever]

There is plenty of scientific website you can look on, try googling it.

[The Kraken]

There is plenty of scientific website you can look on, try googling it.

Indeed; but laymen like me wouldn't know where to start. Hence Chicken Banjo's suggestion of listing the most credible/influential seems a decent starting point. And if others representing the opposite viewpoint could/would do the same to represent their own point of view, all the better.

[aintforever]

Indeed; but laymen like me wouldn't know where to start. Hence Chicken Banjo's suggestion of listing the most credible/influential seems a decent starting point. And if others representing the opposite viewpoint could/would do the same to represent their own point of view, all the better.

 

I wouldn't have the faintest clue who the most credible climate scientists are, I'm not a scientist. like I said just look on science websites and make you own mind up, don't just read the cr@p that's in newspapers.

[The Kraken]

I wouldn't have the faintest clue who the most credible climate scientists are, I'm not a scientist. like I said just look on science websites and make you own mind up, don't just read the cr@p that's in newspapers.

OK, fair enough.

 

Like you, I clearly wouldn't have the faintest idea which scientists (or specific websites and scientific papers) are credible and which aren't, so was just hoping for a bit of a steer in the right direction.

[Saint86]

Sigh, having a scientific debate on this site is pointless..... Where is bear when u need him.

 

Suffice to say that I'm yet to meet a scientist who supports man made global warming. Its not real and we are risking our children and our own future by investing in it.... Its easier to just univest my efforts in arguing with people like bexy of aintforever etc than to continue trying. You don't have the reading of knowledge base to grasp how clear cut bs it is... but to those of us who question the data its clear as ****ing crystal and scary that the media don't report the numerous counter arguments, and that people can't see it for themselves.

 

If you don't know where to look for these papers and scientists then I sure as hell can't be Arsed to invest my effort in debating there merits with you. Suffice to say that scientists at CERN have infinitely more credibility than climatgate geographers who wouldn't know good science if it bit their ******** off..

 

You are mugs for believing what you read or hear in the mainstream media.... Just look at one of their graphs for temp correlation to co2.... Its right there in front of your face... If you can't see what's wrong with one of those graphs and what they use it to then prove then there is no hope for the world and we are doomed to cripple our economies and cover the world in wind turbines, stops eating cattle and adopt china's child control measures for no reason. Yay to the sheep.

[Sheaf Saint]

Suffice to say that I'm yet to meet a scientist who supports man made global warming.

 

Which scientists are you talking to?....

 

http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/

 

I searched the Web of Science, an online science publication tool, for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between January first 1991 and November 9th 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles.... By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17 percent or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming.

 

 

Its not real

 

I do not claim to be an 'expert' in this field by any means (yet), but I am trying to learn as much about it as I can, and as such I am currently undertaking a part-time degree course with the Open University in Environmental studies, where MMGW is taught as 99.9% fact. If there was as much doubt in the scientific community as you claim there is, why would such well-respected educational institutions as the OU be teaching otherwise?

 

 

we are risking our children and our own future by investing in it....

 

Actually I would say the opposite is true. Over recent years Germany has been investing massively in renewable energy technology such as solar. It doesn't seem to have had the negative affect on their economy that scaremongers like to claim it would in Britain. It's all technology at the end of the day, so somebody has to build, install and maintain it, meaning there is a market there for those willing to invest. If we invest in it and the skeptics turn out to be right, then all it means is that we will have created a cleaner, more sustainable world for nothing. Whereas if we do nothing about it, and the skeptics turn out to be wrong, then the whole of the civilised world is screwed. That's a pretty big gamble IMO, and not one that we should be taking.

 

 

You are mugs for believing what you read or hear in the mainstream media

 

Yes, I completely agree.

[badgerx16]

You are mugs for believing what you read or hear in the mainstream media....

 

Do you, perchance, read the Daily Mail or the Daily Telegraph ?

[Lord Duckhunter]

In the old days people blindly followed what their religious leaders told them. Today people seem to be blindly following what scientists are telling us. As with religion I generally ere in the sceptical camp but still respect the motives of both religious leaders and scientists but recognise there is always some self interest present.

 

Spot on.

 

The pro climate change people use "science" to back up their opinions, when in fact there is no way of knowing and it boils down to belief, not science.

 

If I conduct a scientific experiment , I will be proved right or wrong. If I do A, then my opinion is B will happen. If B happens , then I'm proved right. If B doesn't happen, then I'm wrong. If B doesn't happen for a particular reason, then surely it is for me to prove why B hasn't happened. Yet in the "science" of climate change those who were wrong are automatically assumed to be right. The dire warnings of 20/30 years ago, have turned out to be wrong, yet the climate change lobby are still right and challenge disbelievers to prove them wrong.

 

I equate it to life after death. The one fact is we will all die. Whether there's an after life we'll never know. It boils down to belief. The fact here is the climate is changing, how much man has to do with it, can never be known. It boils down to what you believe. It is not a science, because to be a science there has to be an opposite position that can be proved wrong.

 

If I said that I had a special dance and every time I did this dance it rained within a week, it would either rain or it wouldn't. If it rained someone would say "it would have rained anyway". If it didn't rain and I was wrong, would I get away with saying "I misjudged it, it will rain, just not in that week". Would I

[Guided Missile]

This thread demonstrates the m​ost destructive traits commonly found within environmentalism: alarmism, technophobia, failure to consider the costs and benefits of alternatives, and the discounting of human well-being around the world.

 

DDT, GM crops, fracking, fossil fuels....

 

"Silent Spring" kicked of half a century of junk science for the lazy, ill-informed, well-meaning liberal activists, a tiny minority intent on imposing their misguided views on the rest of the world.

[aintforever]

Spot on.

 

The pro climate change people use "science" to back up their opinions, when in fact there is no way of knowing and it boils down to belief, not science.

 

If I conduct a scientific experiment , I will be proved right or wrong. If I do A, then my opinion is B will happen. If B happens , then I'm proved right. If B doesn't happen, then I'm wrong. If B doesn't happen for a particular reason, then surely it is for me to prove why B hasn't happened. Yet in the "science" of climate change those who were wrong are automatically assumed to be right. The dire warnings of 20/30 years ago, have turned out to be wrong, yet the climate change lobby are still right and challenge disbelievers to prove them wrong.

 

I equate it to life after death. The one fact is we will all die. Whether there's an after life we'll never know. It boils down to belief. The fact here is the climate is changing, how much man has to do with it, can never be known. It boils down to what you believe. It is not a science, because to be a science there has to be an opposite position that can be proved wrong.

 

If I said that I had a special dance and every time I did this dance it rained within a week, it would either rain or it wouldn't. If it rained someone would say "it would have rained anyway". If it didn't rain and I was wrong, would I get away with saying "I misjudged it, it will rain, just not in that week". Would I

 

So if 30 years ago someone said it would get warmer and it did they would be proved right yes?

[Whitey Grandad]

So if 30 years ago someone said it would get warmer and it did they would be proved right yes?

 

You could say the same about tossing a coin.

[TheCholulaKid]

Spot on.

 

The pro climate change people use "science" to back up their opinions, when in fact there is no way of knowing and it boils down to belief, not science.

 

If I conduct a scientific experiment , I will be proved right or wrong. If I do A, then my opinion is B will happen. If B happens , then I'm proved right. If B doesn't happen, then I'm wrong. If B doesn't happen for a particular reason, then surely it is for me to prove why B hasn't happened. Yet in the "science" of climate change those who were wrong are automatically assumed to be right. The dire warnings of 20/30 years ago, have turned out to be wrong, yet the climate change lobby are still right and challenge disbelievers to prove them wrong.

 

I equate it to life after death. The one fact is we will all die. Whether there's an after life we'll never know. It boils down to belief. The fact here is the climate is changing, how much man has to do with it, can never be known. It boils down to what you believe. It is not a science, because to be a science there has to be an opposite position that can be proved wrong.

 

If I said that I had a special dance and every time I did this dance it rained within a week, it would either rain or it wouldn't. If it rained someone would say "it would have rained anyway". If it didn't rain and I was wrong, would I get away with saying "I misjudged it, it will rain, just not in that week". Would I

 

This is not how science 'works'. This is not what science 'does'. An utterly naive and embarrassing viewpoint that only serves to highlight your ignorance of how scientists reach conclusions.

[View From The Top]

This is not how science 'works'. This is not what science 'does'. An utterly naive and embarrassing viewpoint that only serves to highlight your ignorance of how scientists reach conclusions.

 

For an obviously intelligent fella he does make himself look really dense with some of his statements on this thread.

 

FWIW I don't believe that we, humankind, are solely responsible for climate change but the idea that pumping billions of tons if sh.ite into the atmosphere, year after year, whilst stripping the trees off the planet isn't impacting planet Earth strikes be as naive.

 

In addition, why anyone has an issue about renewables is beyond me. As a nation we should be focused on gaining energy security. Wars of the future will be fought over energy and why would we want to be reliant on oil from the Middle East or gas from Russia or West Africa?

[Sheaf Saint]

If anybody is interested in listening to the actual findings of the IPCC then there is a live stream of the presentation from Stockholm available here...

 

http://www.igbp.net/multimedia/multimedia/climatechangeeventlivestream.5.29d2af531409c09b243316.html

[badgerx16]

FWIW I don't believe that we, humankind, are solely responsible for climate change but the idea that pumping billions of tons if sh.ite into the atmosphere, year after year, whilst stripping the trees off the planet isn't impacting planet Earth strikes be as naive.

 

Nor do any of the MMCC proponents. There seems to be a particular hook that the nay-sayers are getting stuck on; that the argument is a straight, black or white, "Is Climate Change man made ?", which point can then easily be rebutted by the 'climate has always changed' retort.

[TheCholulaKid]

For an obviously intelligent fella he does make himself look really dense with some of his statements on this thread.

 

FWIW I don't believe that we, humankind, are solely responsible for climate change but the idea that pumping billions of tons if sh.ite into the atmosphere, year after year, whilst stripping the trees off the planet isn't impacting planet Earth strikes be as naive.

 

In addition, why anyone has an issue about renewables is beyond me. As a nation we should be focused on gaining energy security. Wars of the future will be fought over energy and why would we want to be reliant on oil from the Middle East or gas from Russia or West Africa?

 

Yep. This post pretty much sums it up. Idiots at both ends of the political spectrum need a firm kick in the balls. Still, while the Tories and their ilk are being bankrolled by petrochemical multinationals (and there's still money to be made from fossil fuels) then there'll never be a sensible debate played out in the mainstream media.

 

Morons - the lot of them.

[dubai_phil]

Do as we scare you to do Minions.

Meanwhile we the elite will do what we want, oh and you pay the bill.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2454554/Climate-change-ministry-spends-300-000-DOMESTIC-flights-UK-coalition-row-erupts-green-energy-policies.html

 

Minsters in charge of tackling climate spent £300,000 last year flying around the UK, shocking new figures reveal.

The Department for Energy and Climate Change and its quangos charged the taxpayer for more than 1,600 internal flights while lecturing the public about the need to cut carbon emissions.

The huge bill emerged as the coalition was plunged into fresh turmoil over the environment, as David Cameron ordered a review of all green taxes blamed for pushing up energy bills.

[aintforever]

Do as we scare you to do Minions.

Meanwhile we the elite will do what we want, oh and you pay the bill.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2454554/Climate-change-ministry-spends-300-000-DOMESTIC-flights-UK-coalition-row-erupts-green-energy-policies.html

 

That sums up why there is little hope. The science is pretty much without doubt, we KNOW we are effecting the climate (the only debate is by how much), we KNOW the effects could potentially be disastrous. Yet humans are hard-wired with a greed and a selfishness that means that we are essentially powerless to stop the inevitable happening. Just like we are incapable of stopping people starving to death, people killing each other or the financial system going pop.

 

As a country the most important thing to do is try and access what the effects will be to and work out the best way of adapting.

[Frank's cousin]

That sums up why there is little hope. The science is pretty much without doubt, we KNOW we are effecting the climate (the only debate is by how much), we KNOW the effects could potentially be disastrous. Yet humans are hard-wired with a greed and a selfishness that means that we are essentially powerless to stop the inevitable happening. Just like we are incapable of stopping people starving to death, people killing each other or the financial system going pop.

 

As a country the most important thing to do is try and access what the effects will be to and work out the best way of adapting.

 

indeed

 

Jeez, the ignorance and arrogance displayed on here with respect to 'science' is breathtakingly sad.

 

 

First up, up, ignore the web and media. If you want a balanced peer reviewed and credible overview of existing data and conclusions drawn from a true scientific perspective... And in lay mans terms, go for journals like 'Nature' and 'Science' - and look for review articles. Ignore media, all sides, all political bents as they cherry pick data to support their own agendas and politics.

 

 

Science is based purely and simply on testing hypotheses.... With solid and repeatable controlled experimentation or observation. Over a long period of time. Science will acknowledge errors at any tie and look to correct or ignore data if proven flawed.... Even if the media ignore it.

 

 

The he unbiased and very generalised current best scientific conclusions - and science is still a long way from establishing consistency in data and hypotheses to establish a robust theory - is simple

 

 

Global warming is happening - but different data sets suggest different rates

global warning is cyclical in nature

probable that human activity has contributed/accelerated this but difficult to measure

impact of all this can only be modelled - and different models producing different results - lots of work to be done here

also not clear as to whether model outputs accurately reflect impact of human contribution or simply reflect impact of cyclical climate change

 

 

 

 

But how far science is progressing to these answers is really not the issue- as others have said we need to ask ourselves questions:

 

 

1. Are we happy living on a planet where we happily pump out a load of crap into the atmosphere that for example contributes to Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in countries such as China ... Putting economic gain ahead of current and future health? ... Or for sceptics, even if the risk is not proven, is it one you are willing to take on your children's behalf?

 

 

It's down to your own philosophical and in some respects moral attitudes... Currently, most decisions are made politically and from a short term and to be frank capitalist greed perspective.

 

 

Ultimately from a geological/biological time perspective, the planet will 'heal' itself as it progresses towards it's end in 7 billion years time or so, so why worry?

 

 

 

 

well as humans we do tend to care a bit about our kids and grand kids, all depends on what risks we are prepared to take with the kind of environment they will grow up in.

[Sheaf Saint]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pacific-ocean-warming-15-times-faster-than-ever-before-8916297.html

 

Pacific Ocean 'warming 15 times faster than ever before'

Study adds weight to the theory that recent global warming 'pause' is down to heat absorbed by ocean depths

 

Deeper regions of the Pacific Ocean are warming 15 times faster now compared to previous warming phases over the past 10,000 years, a study has found.

 

The findings lend further weight to the idea that the recent “pause” in global surface temperatures may be due to large amounts of heat in the atmosphere being absorbed by the deep ocean, scientists said.

 

The study used indirect, “proxy” temperature readings estimated from the chemical makeup of the shells of tiny marine creatures which had been washed from the middle depths of the Pacific into seabed sediments that had built up off Indonesia.

 

These showed a gradual long-term cooling of the Pacific Ocean over thousands of years at depths of between 1,500 and 3,000 feet, until they started to rise slightly at the start of the Medieval Warm Period in northern Europe around 1100AD.

 

Temperatures then fell again with the rate of cooling increasing during the so-called Little Ice Age of the 17 and 18 Centuries, when “frost fairs” were held regularly on the frozen River Thames, the study found.

 

However, the temperature of the deeper Pacific Ocean over the past 60 years of direct thermometer readings has risen 15 times faster than they did during the warming cycles of the past 10,000 years, based on proxy measurements, said Braddock Linsley, a climate scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York.

 

“Our work showed that intermediate waters in the Pacific had been cooling steadily from about 10,000 years ago. This places the recent warming of the Pacific intermediate waters in temporal context. The trend has now reversed in a big way and the deep ocean is warming,” Dr Linsley said.

 

“We’re experimenting by putting all this heat in the ocean without quite knowing how it’s going to come back out and affect the climate. It’s not so much the magnitude of the change, but the rate of change,” he said.

 

The study, published in the journal Science, is the latest to suggest that huge amounts of heat are being absorbed by the deep ocean. A previous study for instance found that changes to the cold Pacific current, called La Nina, may have resulted in the absorption of excess heat from the atmosphere.

 

Although global surface temperatures from land-based stations show that the world is warmer now than for thousands of years, the rate of increase has levelled off over the past 15 years or so, leading climate sceptics to question the link between global warming and carbon dioxide emissions, which have continued to increase during the same period.

 

The oceans and atmosphere are intimately related to one another, exchanging gases as well as heat, and heat energy can be transported to deep layers which can store vast amounts of heat for long periods of time.

 

One recent estimate for instance suggested that the heat being absorbed by the deep ocean is equivalent to the power generated by 150 billion electric kettles.

 

Yair Rosenthal of Rutgers University in New Jersey, who led the latest study, said that the findings indicate that the deep ocean may be storing far bigger quantities of heat than previous estimates had suggested.

 

“We may have underestimated the efficiency of the oceans as a storehouse for heat and energy. It may buy us some time, but how much time, I don’t really know, to come to terms with climate change. But it’s not going to stop climate change,” Professor Rosenthal said.

 

The temperatures of the Pacific over the past 10,000 were estimated from levels of magnesium and calcium in the shells of Hyalinea balthica, a one-celled organism that gets buried in the seabed sediments off Indonesia as water flows from the middle layers of the Pacific Ocean.

 

Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist with the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said that global surface temperatures are unlikely to go down for any length of time and are more likely to start to rise again.

 

“With global warming you don’t see a gradual warming form one year to the next. It’s more like a staircase. You trot along with nothing much happening for 10 years and then suddenly you have a jump and things never go back to the previous level again,” Dr Trenberth said.

 

Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Columbia University, said: “Surface temperature is only one indicator of climate change. Looking at the total energy stored by the climate system or multiple indicators – glacier melting, water vapour in the atmosphere, snow cover and so on – may be more useful than looking at surface temperature alone.”

[Saint Paul C]

According to this http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html NASA says CO2 cools the atmosphere. Que?

 

recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmospher

 

Also worth a read http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/

 

Now that the plateau in air temperatures has lasted for 15 years, everyone, even IPCC lead authors, can see the “90% certain” models were 98% wrong. So the IPCC now claims the heat went into the deep abyss, which they didn’t predict, can’t measure accurately, and, even by the best estimates we have, has not been anywhere near large enough to explain the missing energy.

 

No settling of science from what I'm seeing.

[Frank's cousin]

According to this http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html NASA says CO2 cools the atmosphere. Que?

 

 

 

Also worth a read http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/

 

 

 

No settling of science from what I'm seeing.

 

 

Sorrry Paul, these are exactly the sort of sites that you should avoid in this debate - both are motivated by an agenda- and in both cases present opinion rather than data, are poorly referenced and dismissive in attitude of what should be a reasoned scientific discussion... One even suggests conspiracy theories!

 

The only way to get an accurate picture of the latest scientific perspectives, unbiased from Both or even the many facets of theses hypotheses, is to read the peer reviewed journals... And high citation indices. They publish Good Science, not on what the results are or suggest... So you will see original research that other independent peers have critiqued - and you will see, that the current overall thinking is as above, yes there are studies that present conflicting data, and also models that provide different predictive outcomes from the same data.... scientists KNOW that to date there is still too many open questions to draw any final definitive conclusions. It journos, media, politicos or social commentators and activists that cherry pick data..... And then give scientists a bad name.... They don't have a clue on how science works.....

 

As as said above, whilst we wait for many years for any conclusive data one way or another, the real question we should be asking is do we want to keep pumping out pollutants and toxins regardless of their effect on the environment, ignorant of ther impact. Or do we take some ****ing responsibility for a change put such things ahead of profits?

[Sheaf Saint]

According to this http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html NASA says CO2 cools the atmosphere. Que?

 

recent NASA report throws the space agency into conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth's atmosphere

 

Eh?? If you follow the link to the NASA report, it makes no such claim and offers no 'proof' whatsoever.

 

As for the second link you posted, I refuse to give any credence to a website littered with adverts for Climate Skeptic merchandise and which offers nothing but the author's opinion.

[OldNick]

With all the millions put into weather forecast and they still can't get that right, it is hard to take all the science seriously. Personally I think we are a small part in the the bigger picture.

I also think we as a nation are pretty naive if we think our quest for stopping green gases is getting the world anywhere as it is a nonsense whilst the billions of Chinese and Indians are pouring out more rubbish than we have in our history.

The younger generation whilst having the green message thrown at them ,still leave the lights on,drive when they could walk and buy throw away furniture instead of looking at a green product.

[OldNick]

With all the millions put into weather forecast and they still can't get that right, it is hard to take all the science seriously. Personally I think we are a small part in the the bigger picture.

I also think we as a nation are pretty naive if we think our quest for stopping green gases is getting the world anywhere as it is a nonsense whilst the billions of Chinese and Indians are pouring out more rubbish than we have in our history.

The younger generation whilst having the green message thrown at them ,still leave the lights on,drive when they could walk and buy throw away furniture instead of looking at a green product.

[Sheaf Saint]

With all the millions put into weather forecast and they still can't get that right

 

Despite the met office accurately predicting last week's storm before it had even formed you mean?

[badgerx16]

According to this http://principia-scientific.org/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html NASA says CO2 cools the atmosphere. Que?

 

What that report says is that CO2 in the Thermosphere, 80+ Km above the earth's surface, reflects excess radiation energy from solar storms back into space. It doesn't say anything about the Greenhouse Effect acting at lower levels.

[badgerx16]

........whilst the billions of Chinese and Indians are pouring out more rubbish than we have in our history.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770

 

"Emissions from China increased by 3% but this was a significant slowdown compared to annual increases of around 10% over the past decade."

 

"China also achieved exceptional growth in the use of hydropower for the generation of electricity, increasing capacity and output by 23% in 2012. This alone had the effect of curbing the country's emissions by 1.5%."

[Frank's cousin]

With all the millions put into weather forecast and they still can't get that right, it is hard to take all the science seriously. Personally I think we are a small part in the the bigger picture.

I also think we as a nation are pretty naive if we think our quest for stopping green gases is getting the world anywhere as it is a nonsense whilst the billions of Chinese and Indians are pouring out more rubbish than we have in our history.

The younger generation whilst having the green message thrown at them ,still leave the lights on,drive when they could walk and buy throw away furniture instead of looking at a green product.

 

 

Ahrrrr ! "It's hard to take all science seriously"

 

 

Not having a giant you nick, but this should read " it's hard to the Media interpretation if science seriously"

 

Meteorologists are scientists, and they forecast using the best models and technology they have available to date- it's far fro perfect, and they KNOW its a best estimate they can provide. As with those researching global climatic change, the published in respected journals science is still in its infancy and the scientists acknowledge this.

 

Anyone with an agenda can find papers to support their opinions - but science looks at ALL data before drawing conclusions, not selected data. At present the true scientific evidence remains inconclusive on several areas because and a great deal more research is needed before all the existing hypotheses are whittled done to a stronger theory....

 

 

Will say it again - the question should be that whilst the evidence is inconclusive, do we carry on as before and HOPE there is no impact, or do we try and change ours behaviours in case there is?

[Pugwash]

China is of course playing catch-up in the industrialisation of their society, so their rise in carbon emissions is understandable. Similarly India. However, both nations are doing it by jumping a step to the latest technologies for burning fossil fuels, using big hydro and renewable schemes and are also exploring advanced nuclear technologies that will leave us in their wake.

[buctootim]

With all the millions put into weather forecast and they still can't get that right, it is hard to take all the science seriously. Personally I think we are a small part in the the bigger picture.

I also think we as a nation are pretty naive if we think our quest for stopping green gases is getting the world anywhere as it is a nonsense whilst the billions of Chinese and Indians are pouring out more rubbish than we have in our history.

The younger generation whilst having the green message thrown at them ,still leave the lights on,drive when they could walk and buy throw away furniture instead of looking at a green product.

Daily weather in one location and global climate trends are totally different concepts. A truck is coming down the road with diesel leaking from its tank. Whilst you can only make a best estimate of which individual cobblestones will get wet, you know for sure that the road overall will be more slippery.

[OldNick]

Despite the met office accurately predicting last week's storm before it had even formed you mean?

Not quite the storm they predicted though. We were abroad and waiting to flew back through it, after reading the BBC website and the red warnings we were expecting a pretty torrid time, fortunately it was bumpy but not as bad as some

[OldNick]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770

 

"Emissions from China increased by 3% but this was a significant slowdown compared to annual increases of around 10% over the past decade."

 

"China also achieved exceptional growth in the use of hydropower for the generation of electricity, increasing capacity and output by 23% in 2012. This alone had the effect of curbing the country's emissions by 1.5%."

whilst that is good it is still an increase of 3% on top of the 10%, and so I assume another 13% above 20years ago. A mathematician will be better at calculating the increase over 20years. There fore if we stopped our use tomorrow how many decades would it take for that to make any difference to counterbalance the Chinese output? When we go into reverse then perhaps there could be reason to be happy. I dearly want the world to be a good place to live for my grandchildrens sake, but Iam sceptical, Ifeel that we all are not doing enough if we really want to make a difference.

[aintforever]

Not quite the storm they predicted though. We were abroad and waiting to flew back through it, after reading the BBC website and the red warnings we were expecting a pretty torrid time, fortunately it was bumpy but not as bad as some

 

Their prediction was pretty much spot on, as usual it was the media that hyped it up, not the scientists.

[Saint George]

whilst that is good it is still an increase of 3% on top of the 10%, and so I assume another 13% above 20years ago. A mathematician will be better at calculating the increase over 20years. There fore if we stopped our use tomorrow how many decades would it take for that to make any difference to counterbalance the Chinese output? When we go into reverse then perhaps there could be reason to be happy. I dearly want the world to be a good place to live for my grandchildrens sake, but Iam sceptical, Ifeel that we all are not doing enough if we really want to make a difference.

 

Don't worry about it Nick....'If' the alarmist's are right, you and anyone else will never be able to do enough....Just aint gunna happen...and besides, we'll run out of fossil fuels way before Climate Change has a chance to send us to our doom......

 

If anyone was really serious about the future of this planet, then we'd all be talking about reducing the world’s population by something like50 - 75% over the next 100 years or so...Because that’s the only way Earth will still be supporting any kind of civilized life form in a couple of thousand years….and that aint gunna happen and anything else is just posturing.

 

It is what it is, so chill and enjoy the ride while it last’s

[Saint Paul C]

A new study suggests that the ban on ozone depleting chemicals may have also impacted the rise in global temperatures. CFC gases were responsible for a massive hole in the ozone layer but they also had a powerful greenhouse effect. The authors link a ban on their use to a "pause" or slowdown in temperature increases since the mid 1990s.

 

The research is published in the journal Nature Geoscience.

 

The subject of a hiatus or standstill in global temperatures rises since 1998 has been the subject of intense debate among scientists, and it has been used as a key argument by some to show that the impacts of global warming have been exaggerated.

 

"Our analysis suggests that the reduction in the emissions of ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol, as well as a reduction in methane emissions, contributed to the lower rate of warming since the 1990s," the authors write.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24874060

[Jonnyboy]

Strongest ever recorded cyclone to hit land.

[OldNick]

watching the BBC last night summed it up for me.There we are talking about global warming effecting the weather and there were at least 5 crews flown straight in. The final sentence of the report said 'and scientists say that we may have more regular storms like this' MAY ffs ,nothing like sitting on the fence and not being categorical.

[scotty]

watching the BBC last night summed it up for me.There we are talking about global warming effecting the weather and there were at least 5 crews flown straight in. The final sentence of the report said 'and scientists say that we may have more regular storms like this' MAY ffs ,nothing like sitting on the fence and not being categorical.

 

Its the BBC, not an internet message board. They equally cant say "man made global warming is a fact", any more than they could categorically state that it's a myth. Which it isn't, imho.