chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Global warming is over"Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it * The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures * This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996 By David Rose PUBLISHED: 16:42 EST, 13 October 2012 | UPDATED: 08:59 EST, 16 October 2012 The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures. This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years." Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook www.dailymail.co.uk Of course some dispute the conclusion, but then again many important people are deeply invested in maintaining the hoax. |
||
|
dmaestro 21-Feb-13, 08:50 |
|
||
|
DM |
||
|
hennybogan1953 21-Feb-13, 10:04 |
|
||
|
mrconservative64 21-Feb-13, 11:17 |
Global Warming.. |
||
|
dmaestro 21-Feb-13, 11:35 |
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Addressing the Daily Mail and James Delingpole’s ‘crazy climate change obsession’ article An article by James Delingpole appears in the Daily Mail today under the headline ‘The crazy climate change obsession that’s made the Met Office a menace’. This article contains a series of factual inaccuracies about the Met Office and its science, as outlined below. Firstly, he claims the Met Office failed to predict snow in 2010, but our 5-day forecasts accurately forecast 12 out of 13 snowfall events – as you can see in this article. In addition the Press Complaints Commission has also already addressed this fallacy with the Daily Telegraph in February of last year. As a result the newspaper published a clarification that highlighted that “the Met Office did warn the public of last winter’s [2010/11] cold weather from early November 2010.” Mr Delingpole also says we failed to predict flooding in November last year. Once again, our 5-day forecasts gave accurate guidance and warnings throughout the period. In just one example of feedback the Met Office has received for highly accurate forecasting and guidance throughout 2012, Assistant Chief Constable Paul Netherton, Chair for the Local Resilience Forum for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly (which was one of the areas most affected by flooding in November), said: “[I] would like to formally thank and recognise the hard work of the Met Office over the past week. The information you provided was invaluable and enabled the responders in Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly to prepare and respond effectively to assist our communities.” Mr Delingpole then inaccurately states that the Met Office has conceded ‘there is no evidence that ‘global warming’ is happening’. We have not said this at any point. In fact, we explicitly say this was not the case in an article, posted on the home page of our website and widely circulated, which was written in response to articles about updates to our decadal forecast. Professor Julia Slingo, Met Office Chief Scientist, has also provided a more in depth feature on ‘Decadal Forecasting – What is it and what does it tell us?’. Further on in the print version of the article (although amended online), Mr Delingpole says “According to the Met, Britain is apparently experiencing more rain by volume and intensity than at any time since records began.” Although he is right in saying the Met Office has published preliminary observations which show an increase in the intensity and volume of rain, we are clear that this relates to a period from 1960 onwards – not ‘since records began’ as he claims. He also states that the Met Office was trying to defend a narrative that the “the past ten years have been the ‘wettest decade ever’”. Again, this is not something the Met Office has ever said. Also he quotes David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation saying that the Met Office ‘thinks weather forecasting is beneath it’ and that ‘climate change… brings in more money’. A cursory glance at our annual report and accounts (pdf) would reveal weather forecasting represents the vast majority of the Met Office’s contractual work on behalf of the public. There are also a number of other accusations which cannot be substantiated. Mr Delingpole does quote Dr Whitehouse saying “when it comes to four or five day weather forecasting, the Met Office is the best in the world.” This supports the view of the World Meterological Organization (WMO) which consistently ranks the Met Office in the top two operational forecasters in the world. Our reputation for forecasting accuracy is based on our commitment to provide the world’s best weather and climate service which helps protect lives and property here in the UK and around the world |
||
|
Pecosbill, I would suggest that you do not get your scientific information from any newspaper, least of all the daily mail, they are well known for reporting inaccurate and exaggerated science stories. If you don't believe me, google a list of the things they have claim cure and kill cancer (and even more amazingly, the things that appear in both lists!). |
||
|
Try this one instead: An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it’ It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here. To address some of the points in the article published today: Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here. Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them. You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below: Hi David, Here’s a response to your questions. I’ve kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation. Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.” The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming. As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade. Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual. Q.2 “Second, tell me what this says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980 – 1996 warming.” The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely. Q.3 “Finally, do these data suggest that factors other than CO2 – such as multi-decadal oceanic cycles – may exert a greater influence on climate than previously realised?” We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by “external forcings”, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research. ———– The below graph which shows years ranked in order of global temperature was not included in the response to Mr Rose, but is useful in this context as it illustrates the point made above that eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade. (to see the graph and for the original article, link to site is here: metofficenews.wordpress.com) |
||
|
|
||
|
Thanks itchy 1) That my sources were not very good. 2) That the University of East Anglia plays a central role in British policy development. They were the institution whose files were hacked a couple years ago and found that they intentionally falsified information. Seems they are perpetrating a falsehood much larger than my source. BTW: My main contention is not that global is not occurring, but that CO2 is just a part of the global warming model and that any actions taken to reduce CO2 will be insignificant. In addition, even if we were able to theoretically reduce global warming by reducing CO2, I see no willingness in the China or the third world to contribute to the cause in a substantial enough way as to actually stop or significantly slow a process which extremely complex. |
||
|
pecosbill carbon-trading/1594361.html China is beginning to get involved. |
||
|
changeling |
||
|
|
||
|
CL... State ownership of companies poses problems "Although carbon trading in the country’s booming economy could be a windfall for the still-struggling global emissions markets, critics say government intervention, state ownership of companies and lack of transparency pose big hurdles to its success." www.voanews.com They create pollution now to sell later... "A few industrial gas manufacturers, mostly based in China, committed to capture and destroy a potent greenhouse gas called fluoroform, or HFC-23, which is used in a wide variety of applications, from suppressing fires to plasma etching in the semiconductor industry. The controversial credits proved immensely popular. The 19 industrial gas destruction projects originally approved for use in Europe’s emissions trading system racked up almost 500 million credits worth $3.3 billion, representing the large majority of all CERs issued to date. Nearly 90 percent of the credits flooded the EU where they accounted for more than half of the total emissions offsets.... To environmental groups, the credits looked suspect. They concluded that some Chinese and other manufacturers intentionally produced far more HFC-23 than necessary in order to create the maximum number of CERs and inflate their profits. In 2010, UN CERs experts cleared the HFC-23 manufacturers of actual fraud, but concluded that in the absence of the monetary incentives, the plants would have reduced their production." www.csmonitor.com China is literally manufacturing pollution now to sell later |
||
|
mrconservative64 03-Mar-13, 11:37 |
Global Warming Is Over? |
Log in 
