USA OUTLAWS EU Carbon Tax...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, looks like the real scientists are have a great old time shredding the "met office didn't record rising temperatures for the past 16 years" nonsense.
Climate Change Deniers Write Another Fact-Free Op-Ed
The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
Even the met, who supposedly "published" this, is weighing on the issue: Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 « Met Office News Blog
But I guess it's all a conspiracy...
Climate Change Deniers Write Another Fact-Free Op-Ed
The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
Even the met, who supposedly "published" this, is weighing on the issue: Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 « Met Office News Blog
But I guess it's all a conspiracy...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err, Baswell,
Take another look at those graphs.
The top graph shows the period only from 1997, the bottom from about 1975.
The post 1997 trend can, in fact, be clearly identified in the bottom graph - it is that red bit of the graph.
It is the red bit of the bottom graph that shows the 16 year period of cooling. That same period, and only that period, is shown in the top graph!
Sure, the graphs look very convincing - at first glance - and this must be heartwarming for the alarmists, but in reality they just confirm what we already know: there has been no warming for 16 years now.
Somebody must think we are complete fools to fall for something so obvious. Many will fall for it though, as they did the infamous "hockeystick".
Take another look at those graphs.
The top graph shows the period only from 1997, the bottom from about 1975.
The post 1997 trend can, in fact, be clearly identified in the bottom graph - it is that red bit of the graph.
It is the red bit of the bottom graph that shows the 16 year period of cooling. That same period, and only that period, is shown in the top graph!
Sure, the graphs look very convincing - at first glance - and this must be heartwarming for the alarmists, but in reality they just confirm what we already know: there has been no warming for 16 years now.
Somebody must think we are complete fools to fall for something so obvious. Many will fall for it though, as they did the infamous "hockeystick".
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And another thing, Baswell,
That article you linked to contains this statement:
Note that claim about the ocean waters. The Argo project, which became operational in 2003, is a series of buoys spread around the world's oceans to measure their temperatures.
The Argo buoys have shown that there has been no increase to the world's ocean temperatures for the life of that project (since 2003).
That article you linked to contains this statement:
On top of that, Rose was using global surface temperatures, which don’t really represent global overall heat content well; most of the heating is going into ocean waters.
The Argo buoys have shown that there has been no increase to the world's ocean temperatures for the life of that project (since 2003).
Seasonally Adjusted
FGD135, the David Rose article from the Daily Mail gets some good analysis in the Met Office link that baswell provided.
The following link also provides an interesting insight into his assertions...
Temperature “analysis” by David Rose doesn’t smell so sweet | Open Mind
The major problem is that David Rose has made one of the most common mistakes studying data. He looked at a graph and concluded that the long-term temperature trend had changed around mid-1997, then showed only the data since mid-1997 and claimed it was “the chart that proves it.”
His choice to start with mid-1997 was made because that gave him the result he wanted. That’s a practice called “cherry-picking.”
The following link also provides an interesting insight into his assertions...
Temperature “analysis” by David Rose doesn’t smell so sweet | Open Mind
The major problem is that David Rose has made one of the most common mistakes studying data. He looked at a graph and concluded that the long-term temperature trend had changed around mid-1997, then showed only the data since mid-1997 and claimed it was “the chart that proves it.”
His choice to start with mid-1997 was made because that gave him the result he wanted. That’s a practice called “cherry-picking.”
Seasonally Adjusted
The Argo buoys have shown that there has been no increase to the world's ocean temperatures for the life of that project (since 2003).
Global Change Analysis
Salient points...
A key objective of Argo is to observe ocean signals related to climate change.
The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 7-year globally-averaged time series.
Argo's greatest contributions to observing the global oceans are still in the future, but its global span is clearly transforming the capability to observe climate-related changes.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're missing the point, Towering Q.
The whole point of picking 1997 as the start point is to show that there has been a decline in world temperatures since then.
A 16 year decline is especially significant when compared against the hundreds of alarmist claims/predictions that the temperature would be steadily rising throughout that period.
That decline is excrutiatingly embarrassing to the alarmist scientists. The "climategate" email revelations showed us just how embarrassing.
To the uninitiated, the "climategate" scandal came about when an email server at the University of East Anglia was hacked and thousands of emails messages were copied and released to the public. Those messages revealed the personal discussions between the world's "top-most" climate scientists.
The phrase "hide the decline" was used by one of the climatologists. The full passage was:
And, Dr Kevin Trenberth, referring to the decline in another email, said this:
The whole point of picking 1997 as the start point is to show that there has been a decline in world temperatures since then.
A 16 year decline is especially significant when compared against the hundreds of alarmist claims/predictions that the temperature would be steadily rising throughout that period.
That decline is excrutiatingly embarrassing to the alarmist scientists. The "climategate" email revelations showed us just how embarrassing.
To the uninitiated, the "climategate" scandal came about when an email server at the University of East Anglia was hacked and thousands of emails messages were copied and released to the public. Those messages revealed the personal discussions between the world's "top-most" climate scientists.
The phrase "hide the decline" was used by one of the climatologists. The full passage was:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
Grandpa Aerotart
AR5 leaked - IPCC doing a LOT of backpeddling...read it and weep alarmists...no man made signal evident in droughts, floods, cyclones and the world is indeed NOT warming these last 16 years.
Draft IPCC report leaked (the evidence is so overwhelming it has to be kept secret!) « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax
Draft IPCC report leaked (the evidence is so overwhelming it has to be kept secret!) « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax
Seasonally Adjusted
The whole point of picking 1997 as the start point is to show that there has been a decline in world temperatures since then.
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..
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US isn't going to pay any European carbon tax.
This topic is so, so, off thread, and all the usual suspects, are at it, achieving nothing except failing to agree on a cruel fraudulent social experiment forced on a targetted gullible public to the extent it is divisive and a waste of time and energy unless you hapen to support the ravings of alarmists.
Try this thread:http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/4710...debate-91.html
58,835 hits with 1,808 replies. A place where all disappear up their respective suck-holes and jetblast carry the can.
They deserve you all.
I'm off to fight CASA and their perceived right to exist.
Try this thread:http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/4710...debate-91.html
58,835 hits with 1,808 replies. A place where all disappear up their respective suck-holes and jetblast carry the can.
They deserve you all.
I'm off to fight CASA and their perceived right to exist.
Seasonally Adjusted
a cruel fraudulent social experiment forced on a targetted gullible public
Good luck with the CASA thing...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there has been no warming for 16 years now
In fact, why don't you pick that one spike from roughly 1995 as starting point and prove the earth has been cooling?
IPCC report...
.
"...The real bombshell of the report is now evident, a lack of warming to match model projections..."
IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on ‘extreme weather’ | Watts Up With That?
.
"...The real bombshell of the report is now evident, a lack of warming to match model projections..."
IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on ‘extreme weather’ | Watts Up With That?
.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't matter what you conspiracy theory nutters rant on about, the science is accepted and proven, the world is moving forward.
Man-made carbon emissions have lead to global warming and climate change.
The Carbon Tax is a good way to mitigate carbon emissions.
Man-made carbon emissions have lead to global warming and climate change.
The Carbon Tax is a good way to mitigate carbon emissions.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Global warming has been increasing and following the trends predicted as far back as 1982.
Take a look at the following graph. This graph comes from the IPCC themselves (via the leaked AR5 report).
The coloured bands are the IPCC-predicted temperature ranges. The black squares and bars are the actual observations.
Take a look for yourself at how well the observations fit with the predictions - then tell me again how "global warming has been increasing and following the predictions".
Last edited by FGD135; 15th Dec 2012 at 10:05.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm amused by global warming nutters like peterc005 and baswell and all the others out there. Lots of talk about how important it is to do more to prevent man-made global warming. "Gotta reduce our CO2 emissions and stop polluting the atmosphere, rivers, lakes, oceans."
But when push comes to shove, they won't give up their cars, buses, trains, planes and won't turn off their TVs, airconditioners, heaters, and never use lights at night (all these things never to be used again). They even travel by gas-guzzling airliners to another state or country, and we know how many tons of CO2 that produces
. No, no, no, because that would stop them from living the lifestyle they enjoy.
Instead they keep singing praise for pathetic initiatives like a carbon tax, and Earth Hour (how f##king pathetic is that gesture of turning lights off for 1 hour a year, OMFG).
As peterc005 says:
Well peter, an even more effective thing than a tax is for you to stop driving your car, or using any other type of emissions producing transportation. It has an immediate and measurable effect. There ya go, that's how you can do your bit.
Baswell says:
Yeh, not worth giving up your right to travel by air, I mean it doesn't contribute much to man-made global warming. An airliner only goes through 100s of car tanks worth of fuel in an international flight. That's not much. Pffft, not even worth worrying about. OR, you and the other 90% (apparently) of global warming nutters could stop travelling by plane, then the demand for flights will reduce, causing less flights to happen, causing less emissions and voila...less global warming.
But it's these 'feel good' gestures that seem to make them think they're doing their part to save this Earth.
That's right guys, fight the necessary fight, but don't you do anything real about the situation.
You just keep enjoying life's luxuries at the expense of the Earth.
F##king hypocrites.
(The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behaviour does not conform)
But when push comes to shove, they won't give up their cars, buses, trains, planes and won't turn off their TVs, airconditioners, heaters, and never use lights at night (all these things never to be used again). They even travel by gas-guzzling airliners to another state or country, and we know how many tons of CO2 that produces
. No, no, no, because that would stop them from living the lifestyle they enjoy.Instead they keep singing praise for pathetic initiatives like a carbon tax, and Earth Hour (how f##king pathetic is that gesture of turning lights off for 1 hour a year, OMFG
). As peterc005 says:
"A Carbon Tax is an essential step to help mitigate Global Warming".
Baswell says:
"Aviation is not the problem, it only puts out a small amount of CO2 compared to the main culprits. It's also a vital part of our society where only minor improvements can be made."
But it's these 'feel good' gestures that seem to make them think they're doing their part to save this Earth.
That's right guys, fight the necessary fight, but don't you do anything real about the situation.
You just keep enjoying life's luxuries at the expense of the Earth.F##king hypocrites.
(The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behaviour does not conform)
Seasonally Adjusted
The IPCC Draft Report leak is discussed here...
IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
In summary:
The leaked IPCC report states that there may be some connection between GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) and some aspects of the climate system.
However, the report is also consistent with the body of scientific literature in stating that research indicates GCRs are not effective at seeding clouds and have very little influence on global temperatures.
Solar activity has been nearly flat and slightly decreasing in recent decades, meaning that if GCRs do amplify solar influences on climate, they are amplifying a cooling effect.
The body of peer-reviewed scientific literature is very clear: human greenhouse gas emissions, not solar activity or galactic cosmic rays, are causing global warming. The leaked IPCC report is entirely consistent with this conclusion.
One of the comments at the end of the article says it all:
In a way, this is precisely the "climategate" model: gain access to information that is not yet publicly available; sift through looking for useful bits; trumpet those bits out of context, relying on the target audience to buy it hook, line, and sinker without ever reading the original context.
IPCC Draft Report Leaked, Shows Global Warming is NOT Due to the Sun
In summary:
The leaked IPCC report states that there may be some connection between GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) and some aspects of the climate system.
However, the report is also consistent with the body of scientific literature in stating that research indicates GCRs are not effective at seeding clouds and have very little influence on global temperatures.
Solar activity has been nearly flat and slightly decreasing in recent decades, meaning that if GCRs do amplify solar influences on climate, they are amplifying a cooling effect.
The body of peer-reviewed scientific literature is very clear: human greenhouse gas emissions, not solar activity or galactic cosmic rays, are causing global warming. The leaked IPCC report is entirely consistent with this conclusion.
One of the comments at the end of the article says it all:
In a way, this is precisely the "climategate" model: gain access to information that is not yet publicly available; sift through looking for useful bits; trumpet those bits out of context, relying on the target audience to buy it hook, line, and sinker without ever reading the original context.
Thread Starter
Hi Mr 'D',
Taking a line from you....and not disagreeing with you, so for the remainder....
Re ". "Gotta reduce our CO2 emissions and stop polluting the atmosphere, rivers, lakes, oceans."
Funny ain't it? Around 165 MILLION years ago, the Co2 content was VERY HIGH, and allowed those BIG trees to grow...you know the ones that were the food source of the herbavores.
The planet was supposedly then covered in lush vegetation, thus allowing the dinosaurs etc to thrive.
Now it ain't covered in lush vegetation...is this because there is insufficient
Co2 these days to promote the growth of same vegetation...??
Your call....the 'remainder'.....that is....
Cheers
Taking a line from you....and not disagreeing with you, so for the remainder....
Re ". "Gotta reduce our CO2 emissions and stop polluting the atmosphere, rivers, lakes, oceans."
Funny ain't it? Around 165 MILLION years ago, the Co2 content was VERY HIGH, and allowed those BIG trees to grow...you know the ones that were the food source of the herbavores.
The planet was supposedly then covered in lush vegetation, thus allowing the dinosaurs etc to thrive.
Now it ain't covered in lush vegetation...is this because there is insufficient
Co2 these days to promote the growth of same vegetation...??
Your call....the 'remainder'.....that is....
Cheers
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 15th Dec 2012 at 12:26.