Effects of Global Warming ??

[DeepFrz]

Sorry, I forgot to include the quote, please backup and read my last post.

[bobsadler]

"When David Rose of the Mail on Sunday wrote two pieces last year, several months apart, saying there had been no global warming for 15 years, the [UK] Met Office responded to each article with Met Office in the Media blog postings that, between them, made the following assertions:

1. "... [F]or Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading."
2. "What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming ...".
3. "The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Niña) is about 0.03 C°/decade ...".
4. "Each of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade."
5. "The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming ... so ... such a period [15 years without warming] is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely."

Each of the assertions enumerated above was calculated to deceive. Each assertion is a lie. It is a lie told for financial advantage. Let me take each assertion in turn and briefly outline the evidence.

1. The assertion that Mr Rose was "entirely misleading" to say there had been no global warming for 15 years is not just entirely misleading: it is entirely false. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the global temperature data is statistically indistinguishable from zero for 18 years (HadCRUt4), or 19 years (HadCRUt3), or even 23 years (RSS).
2. What is absolutely clear is that the assertion that "it is absolutely clear that we have continued to see a trend of warming" is absolutely, clearly false. The assertion is timescale-dependent. The Met Office justified it by noting that each of the last n decades was warmer than the decade that preceded it. A simple heuristic will demonstrate the dishonesty of this argument. Take a two-decade period. In each of years 1-2, the world warms by 0.05 Cº. In each of years 3-20, the world does not warm at all. Sure, the second decade will be warmer than the first. But global warming will still have stopped for 18 years. By making comparisons on timescales longer than the 18 years without warming, what we are seeing is long-past warming, not a continuing "trend of warming".
3. In August 1997 global temperatures were not "in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño": they were in transition, about halfway between La Niña (cooler than normal) and El Niño (warmer than normal) conditions. Likewise, temperatures in August 2012 were not "at the tail-end of a double-dip La Niña": they were plainly again in transition between the La Niña of 2011/12 and the El Niño due in a year or two.
4. The Met Office's assertion that each of the past ten years has been in the top ten is dataset-dependent. On most datasets, 1998 was the warmest year on the global instrumental record (which only began 160-odd years ago). Therefore, on these datasets, it cannot have been possible for each of the last ten years to be among the warmest on record.
5. Finally, the Met Office shoots itself in the foot by implicitly admitting that there has been a 15-year period without warming, saying that such a period is "not unexpected". Yet that period was not "expected" by any of the dozens of lavishly-funded computer models that have been enriching their operators - including the Met Office, whose new computer cost gazillions and has the carbon footprint of a small town every time it is switched on. The NOAA's State of the Climate report in 2008 said this: "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 15 years 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.""

Global Warming? Has the UK Met Office committed fraud? -- Earth Changes -- Sott.net

[Sabbatical II]

Originally Posted by Sabbatical II

Just wondering what effects you are experiencing of global warming in your area. On the East coast of Australia (NSW) we are having a strange summer for the second year in a row. Maybe the water is a bit warmer but the result seems to be cooler temperatures, more unsettled weather patterns and much more rain. Today we have just been forecast 40 days of rain ahead for the month of March.

Wow, 155 posts and I still haven't found the answer I was looking for. Maybe I'll need every one of the 40 days forecast for this March to get it. I guess I didn't seek to stir up the global warming debate. In my opinion the weather is increasingly unsettled. While I seem to be able to trust the BOM site for letting me know the strength of approaching weather systems, the timing of them sometimes seems to be way off and more so than it has been in the past. I'm keen to know if this is an Australian phenomena or is weather becoming more unpredictable the world over?

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Posted by ArtM;

ArtM, do you have a source for that?

Indeed I do.

I first developed the suspicion many years ago whilst attempting to understand how Darwinian cross-species evolutionary theory could continue to receive funding despite the very obvious lack of supporting evidence after many decades of searching.

It turned out that the answer was that there are certain research topics which,if you can twist your own research "goals" enough to match them, are more likely to receive funding than if you plainly state that your actual research goals are to pursue a theory that is fundamentally unrelated, or possibly even in direct opposition to the "main-line" theory.

It is a necessary system I suppose to ensure that the complete crackpots don't get funded to do stupid things like invent free energy sources or cars that run on water.

Anyway, my favorite variation was one called "punctuated equlibrium" - a theory by which species evolution is not a continuous process, but rather one by which a new species is spontaneously and rarely "evolved" from some prior species as a kind of evolutionary "one-off" mutation. I found this one particularly entertaining because of the very obvious lack of explanation as to how both a male and female of such a species might have been created in sufficiently close proximity to perpetuate the species.

I was also entertained by the idea that the supporting evidence, should it ever be found, would be extremely similar to the required evidence to support "spontaneous creationism" theory - an attempt to codify the concept of biblical creationism into a scientific framework.

Ho... well in any case, I grow weary...

I leave it as an exercise for the professor to produce evidence that the student's hypothesis is incorrect.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Sabbatical II

Wow, 155 posts and I still haven't found the answer I was looking for. Maybe I'll need every one of the 40 days forecast for this March to get it. I guess I didn't seek to stir up the global warming debate. In my opinion the weather is increasingly unsettled. While I seem to be able to trust the BOM site for letting me know the strength of approaching weather systems, the timing of them sometimes seems to be way off and more so than it has been in the past. I'm keen to know if this is an Australian phenomena or is weather becoming more unpredictable the world over?

In Mackay in Central Queensland we are having a very normal good wet season.
So far for growing of sugar cane the major agricultural crop well spaced falls with no damaging rain or floods.

Somewhat different from Rockhampton south to the border into NSW.

Normal weather variability so far.

Cheers

[Lagoon4us]

Maybe a dumb question but is this whole C02 theory based on the shifting/displacing of Co2 from it's solid forms at ground level to a gas in the atmosphere at a particular height, is this correct?

Cheerz.

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

Maybe a dumb question but is this whole C02 theory based on the shifting/displacing of Co2 from it's solid forms at ground level to a gas in the atmosphere at a particular height, is this correct?

Cheerz.

C02 is formed through combustion (in machines) and respiration (in humans)

There are many "greenhouse" gasses, but at least one variation on this theory is that the combined effect of increasing combustion (of carbon-fuels), increased human population, increased productivity of domesticated animals, and a decrease in trees (which break down CO2 into solid carbon forms and Oxygen) have lead to an increase in the amounts of atmospheric CO2

But greenhouse theory is about much more than C02 - CO, for example, is far more insidious and the reason for the government mandate of platinum catalyzers being installed on all vehicles (resulting in a global shortage of platinum, which is of course the new gold, and also resulting in an increase of C02 in place of the CO)

[Lagoon4us]

Russians control platinum don't they?

So all things being equal what replaces the displaced volumes that as i understand are heading skyward? i.e. volumes in a space equalise to their own densities (i think) so what moves in , if you like, to fill the void?

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

Russians control platinum don't they?

So all things being equal what replaces the displaced volumes that as i understand are heading skyward? i.e. volumes in a space equalise to their own densities (i think) so what moves in , if you like, to fill the void?

Since the "space" is the entire universe, I'm not sure if or how this applies. The earth's atmosphere is not a closed container, and gravity is a predominant force over these scales of distance. Gasses rise or fall according to their density, and are affected by chemical interactions, exposure to the ionosphere, solar radiation, etc.

[Lagoon4us]

Ok i thought our atmosphere was essentially layered by atoms of depreciating weight and that if a lighter gas was displaced it would be by a heavier denser one.

Back on thread, Climate change is certainly what we are seeing worldwide, wether we are heading for a cooler or hotter period is the subject of endless debate, modifying our habits reducing our emissions may be too late as we are witnessing change now.

A cooling will/would self manage the human effect big time and just maybe that's our lot or reward for living like theres no tomorrow.

Not only is their an imbalance of gases theirs also an imbalance in population, humans and cockroaches succeeding, fish and wildlife depleting.

Don't want to engage argument here, had enough of that previously for the most innocuous thread.
Greg i do agree we are seeing lot's of weather but wether..........................

Cheerz.

[Ocean Girl]

Originally Posted by Sabbatical II

Wow, 155 posts and I still haven't found the answer I was looking for. Maybe I'll need every one of the 40 days forecast for this March to get it. I guess I didn't seek to stir up the global warming debate. In my opinion the weather is increasingly unsettled. While I seem to be able to trust the BOM site for letting me know the strength of approaching weather systems, the timing of them sometimes seems to be way off and more so than it has been in the past. I'm keen to know if this is an Australian phenomena or is weather becoming more unpredictable the world over?

Sorry sabbatical,
what I've seen here (Texas) is a hell of a drought, lake level for Lake Travis is 50 feet below ( source)
Texas Average temp is up .5deg(source)
Hurricane trends are changing, there is an increase in the amount of tropical storms that form close to US mainland, instead of the usual march from Africa. Plus an increase in average hurricane storm surge, and "super storms" ( source)

Not sure if that proves anything but change is happening. Again, I think the life on the planet( plant, animal, etc) is a better telltale of whether the current change is good or not. Extinctions are pretty hard to explain away.
"Peter Raven, past President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), states in the foreword to their publication AAAS Atlas of Population and Environment:[10] "We have driven the rate of biological extinction, the permanent loss of species, up several hundred times beyond its historical levels, and are threatened with the loss of a majority of all species by the end of the 21st century."[11]. (source)

Sorry to be such a bummer
Erika

[Lagoon4us]

The blizzard conditions we are seeing reported in Texas now, is that something that happens occasionally?

Cheers.

[Ocean Girl]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

The blizzard conditions we are seeing reported in Texas now, is that something that happens occasionally?

Cheers.

Don't know..we have been in shorts most of the winter, though it is a bit nippy tonight (50 deg). Tomorrows high is 69. Must be the pan handle getting the blizzards, lat 35/36 ish, we are at latitude 30.
Erika

[Lagoon4us]

Ok, i guess it's typical for an outsider to draw conclusions that if a weather event is happening it effects the complete State area, right now watching morning news here the reports are amazing re the blizzard affecting Texas.

Probably this goes a long way to our perceptions, weather is actually quite local but the media is all encompassing.......

Cheers enjoy it's 11C here nice sunshine....

[savoir]

Originally Posted by ArtM

Do you mean that it takes more energy to operate a wind turbine than it produces?

Or do you mean that the people who control the oil supply and prices are continuing to provide financial pressure to slow the spread of low cost renewable energy sources?

I mean that the poor suffering taxpayers of the country in question must stump up their hard earned buck$ in order for the wind farm to continue to exist. In every case were said wind farm to sell its power on the open market it would fail to cover expenses and so wind up broke.

The oil industry is irrelevant and there is nothing low cost about wind power. Go look at what it costs to change the bearings in one of those turbines.