Warming, what warming?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA

Warming, what warming?

Postby TDPerk » Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:21 am

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andr ... r_19_years

This squares with my experience growing vegetable garden. Plant when the text in the package says for your region, and like as not it will rot.

Wait a few more weeks or a month, and you're fine.

30 years ago, my dad did not have such problems with anything like this frequency.

Take out the upward adjustments to historical data, and we've actually been cooling a bit.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Warming, what warming?

Postby Diogenes » Tue Sep 02, 2014 3:22 pm

Would the last person out of the global warming crack house please turn off Al Gore's lights?


http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/5 ... _out_1.php
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Posts: 2251
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Warming, what warming?

Postby hanelyp » Tue Sep 02, 2014 5:56 pm

The CO2 driven models have been invalidated, and the data shown to be molested... but for vast numbers of people all they see is the propaganda claiming we need to shut down fossil fuel driven industry or the Earth will be destroyed.

Personally, I'm a lot more concerned that we may face a little ice age in the near future, with our energy industry crippled by political correctness and unable to cope.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: Warming, what warming?

Postby JLawson » Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:46 pm

If a model predicts something - and it happens, then reality coincides with the model.

If a model predicts something that doesn't happen, then reality is not coinciding with the model. No matter how attached you are to that model, no matter how much grant money it's earned with the promises of 'it's getting better!', sooner or later it's going to be apparent that reality is not going along with the model.

The assumption is that the planet is warming. If models are created using that assumption, is it ethical to 'adjust the data' gathered from reality to show that the model is correct?

At this point, the polar bear should have been endangered to double-digit population levels and the Arctic ice cap gone completely.

(On preview...)

I think our energy industry could cope with an ice age - IF we can get them freed from a government that sees regulation as an unmitigated good thing, with 'the more the better' being used as their operating philosophy.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.

Posts: 2441
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Warming, what warming?

Postby paperburn1 » Wed Sep 03, 2014 1:12 am

Kinda sad if true, I was banking on the polar sea routes to be open longer to revitalize the economy.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Posts: 1802
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Warming, what warming?

Postby williatw » Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:02 am

Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

Now come climate scientists' implausible explanations for why the 'hiatus' has passed the 15-year mark.


On Sept. 23 the United Nations will host a party for world leaders in New York to pledge urgent action against climate change. Yet leaders from China, India and Germany have already announced that they won't attend the summit and others are likely to follow, leaving President Obama looking a bit lonely. Could it be that they no longer regard it as an urgent threat that some time later in this century the air may get a bit warmer?

In effect, this is all that's left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).
Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.

First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or "hiatus"), but that it doesn't after all invalidate their theories.

Alas, their explanations have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.

When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was "wrong, completely wrong," and was "deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public."

We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse's article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998," wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: "Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn't statistically significant."

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: "The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more."

Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That's according to a new statistical calculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.
It has been roughly two decades since there was a trend in temperature significantly different from zero. The burst of warming that preceded the millennium lasted about 20 years and was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940.

This has taken me by surprise. I was among those who thought the pause was a blip. As a "lukewarmer," I've long thought that man-made carbon-dioxide emissions will raise global temperatures, but that this effect will not be amplified much by feedbacks from extra water vapor and clouds, so the world will probably be only a bit more than one degree Celsius warmer in 2100 than today. By contrast, the assumption built into the average climate model is that water-vapor feedback will treble the effect of carbon dioxide.

But now I worry that I am exaggerating, rather than underplaying, the likely warming.

Most science journalists, who are strongly biased in favor of reporting alarming predictions, rather than neutral facts, chose to ignore the pause until very recently, when there were explanations available for it. Nearly 40 different excuses for the pause have been advanced, including Chinese economic growth that supposedly pushed cooling sulfate particles into the air, the removal of ozone-eating chemicals, an excess of volcanic emissions, and a slowdown in magnetic activity in the sun.

The favorite explanation earlier this year was that strong trade winds in the Pacific Ocean had been taking warmth from the air and sequestering it in the ocean. This was based on a few sketchy observations, suggesting a very tiny change in water temperature—a few hundredths of a degree—at depths of up to 200 meters.

Last month two scientists wrote in Science that they had instead found the explanation in natural fluctuations in currents in the Atlantic Ocean. For the last 30 years of the 20th century, Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung suggested, these currents had been boosting the warming by bringing heat to the surface, then for the past 15 years the currents had been counteracting it by taking heat down deep.

The warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, to quote the news release that accompanied their paper, "was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle." In other words, even the modest warming in the 1980s and 1990s—which never achieved the 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade necessary to satisfy the feedback-enhanced models that predict about three degrees of warming by the end of the century—had been exaggerated by natural causes. The man-made warming of the past 20 years has been so feeble that a shifting current in one ocean was enough to wipe it out altogether.

Putting the icing on the cake of good news, Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung think the Atlantic Ocean may continue to prevent any warming for the next two decades. So in their quest to explain the pause, scientists have made the future sound even less alarming than before. Let's hope that the United Nations admits as much on day one of its coming jamboree and asks the delegates to pack up, go home and concentrate on more pressing global problems like war, terror, disease, poverty, habitat loss and the 1.3 billion people with no electricity.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-rid ... 1409872855

Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA

Re: Warming, what warming?

Postby TDPerk » Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:05 pm

Would it be untoward--or for that matter, expecting to much honesty--to start a pool for when tomclarke admits he's been had?
molon labe

montani semper liberi

para fides paternae patria

Posts: 1803
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Re: Warming, what warming?

Postby mvanwink5 » Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:41 pm

TDP, even if we went full bore into the big glaciation phase TC would just blame the cooling on the warming caused by manmade, abnormal levels of CO2. :lol:

In a way, I am happy the Progs are fixing the atmosphere. It keeps them occupied somewhat. Imagine what would happen if they started to fix anything else? We have enough broke things already from their meddling. :roll:
Near term, cheap, dark horse fusion hits the air waves, GF - TED, LM - Announcement. The race is on.

Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA

Re: Warming, what warming?

Postby TDPerk » Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:26 am

"expecting to much"

Dang homonyms.
molon labe

montani semper liberi

para fides paternae patria

Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois

Re: Warming, what warming?

Postby MSimon » Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:57 pm

TDPerk wrote:Would it be untoward--or for that matter, expecting to much honesty--to start a pool for when tomclarke admits he's been had?

Faith is irrefutable. If I was in that pool I'd go for never. But it would take too long to collect. ;-)
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests