Global Warming: still the ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Make sure your affairs are in order.
24 days to Al Gore’s ’10 years to save the planet’ and ‘point of no return’ planetary emergency deadline | Watts Up With That?
24 days to Al Gore’s ’10 years to save the planet’ and ‘point of no return’ planetary emergency deadline | Watts Up With That?
Coffee House
A new paper in a prestigious journal proves a 15-year hiatus in global warming. Why it it being ignored?
David Whitehouse
26 February 2016
The Spectator
This article, in Nature magazine, ought to have been front page news – and might have been, had it suggested that global warming was worse than we had thought. Instead, it underlines the sound science behind an inconvenient truth: that there has been a 15-year hiatus in global warming. To those of us who have been following the debate, this is no surprise.
In 2007 I pointed out that it was curious that in recent years the global annual average temperature had not increased at a time when greenhouse gasses were increasing rapidly and when the media was full of claims that the earth’s temperature was getting higher and higher. I proposed no explanation but said that it was a curious observation that would probably change in the near future. I was lambasted for being a denier and liar. Yet in the following years the global temperature did not increase.
Some vocal scientists spent more time saying it was wrong than actually looking at the data. While many in the media portrayed the phenomenon as a desperate weapon used by sceptics to undermine climate science, real scientists took notice and began to study the warming pause. It was not long before it was being discussed at conferences and in scientific journals. Something was clearly different about the nature of global temperature change since 1997 than it had been in the previous two decades. It was not only slower, but not increasing at all for many years. Indeed it was said in the prestigious scientific journal Nature that the “pause” or “hiatus” is the biggest problem in climate science.
The study of the warming hiatus is cutting-edge climate science not the “settled science” of the greenhouse effect and mankind’s input of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. It is not complicated. The three main global temperature datasets are freely available to anyone and there are many, not just professional climate scientists, who have the scientific and statistical skills to analyse what is after all not a great deal of data.
It is curious, and somewhat depressing, that the hiatus seemed to become an icon in the “battle” between those scientists who felt the need to defend science against sceptics who they fear are out to destroy it. Most of the media saw it that way and whenever a paper, or just a comment, came out saying the hiatus didn’t exist they were onto it. Environmental journalists seemed obsessed with bashing sceptics instead of reporting the science and, as for the many papers taking the hiatus seriously they seemed to be deliberately looking the other way. In doing so they were missing the biggest story in climate science.
A handful of scientists believe there is no hiatus. Analyse the data this way, they say, and you can argue it’s not there. Others reply that if you look at the data another way, it is obvious.
One problem the media have in reporting science is what I have called the “last paper effect.” How many times have you read or heard that this or that particular piece of research settles the debate or is the last word? The science on say bacon and cancer, on butter, on sugar, or the hiatus is settled by this latest paper. The problem is there is always another paper coming along later.
Last summer the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a paper in the Journal Science that said the hiatus did not exist. They had “refreshed” some of the data and the hiatus had gone away. It was a very interesting paper, full of questions though many did not think it was the final word on the matter. However the media did. For a science story it got blanket coverage. Many who believed in the hiatus were asked if they would now admit they were wrong. The hiatus was over. It never existed. Official.
But as I said, it was inevitable that another paper would come along.
In the latest issue of the journal Nature Climate Science eleven distinguished scientists published new findings on surface temperature measurements and ocean heat content analysis. It is titled “making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown.” The carefully constructed very first sentence summarizes the diversity of opinion.
Whether the hiatus is a slowdown, a pause or a stop is debatable. It depends on how you analyse it. But it has clearly not gone away.
One would have thought that this would have been a great story for the world’s news media who were so enthusiastic to bury the hiatus. But no. They are looking the other way again. Almost none of the outlets who trumpeted the end of the hiatus has mentioned this latest research.
The hiatus is good for science. It tells us about natural climate variability of which our knowledge is still very limited. It holds valuable scientific information and in climate science, with it huge political and economic implications, we need all the information we can get.
There are over 40 explanations for the warming hiatus proposed by scientists from small volcanoes, ocean movements, effects in the stratosphere, data gathering problems and many more. They can’t all be right they are all a valuable contribution to a scientific mystery. It shows us that the real science is not settled.
And another thing. About those sceptics who are seeking to deny and undermine climate science. It was the sceptics, not the scientists, who discovered the hiatus, this so-called biggest problem in climate science.
Dr David Whitehouse is the Science Editor of the Global Warming Policy Forum and a former BBC Science Correspondent.
A new paper in a prestigious journal proves a 15-year hiatus in global warming. Why it it being ignored? | Coffee House
A new paper in a prestigious journal proves a 15-year hiatus in global warming. Why it it being ignored?
David Whitehouse
26 February 2016
The Spectator
This article, in Nature magazine, ought to have been front page news – and might have been, had it suggested that global warming was worse than we had thought. Instead, it underlines the sound science behind an inconvenient truth: that there has been a 15-year hiatus in global warming. To those of us who have been following the debate, this is no surprise.
In 2007 I pointed out that it was curious that in recent years the global annual average temperature had not increased at a time when greenhouse gasses were increasing rapidly and when the media was full of claims that the earth’s temperature was getting higher and higher. I proposed no explanation but said that it was a curious observation that would probably change in the near future. I was lambasted for being a denier and liar. Yet in the following years the global temperature did not increase.
The study of the warming hiatus is cutting-edge climate science not the “settled science” of the greenhouse effect and mankind’s input of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. It is not complicated. The three main global temperature datasets are freely available to anyone and there are many, not just professional climate scientists, who have the scientific and statistical skills to analyse what is after all not a great deal of data.
It is curious, and somewhat depressing, that the hiatus seemed to become an icon in the “battle” between those scientists who felt the need to defend science against sceptics who they fear are out to destroy it. Most of the media saw it that way and whenever a paper, or just a comment, came out saying the hiatus didn’t exist they were onto it. Environmental journalists seemed obsessed with bashing sceptics instead of reporting the science and, as for the many papers taking the hiatus seriously they seemed to be deliberately looking the other way. In doing so they were missing the biggest story in climate science.
A handful of scientists believe there is no hiatus. Analyse the data this way, they say, and you can argue it’s not there. Others reply that if you look at the data another way, it is obvious.
One problem the media have in reporting science is what I have called the “last paper effect.” How many times have you read or heard that this or that particular piece of research settles the debate or is the last word? The science on say bacon and cancer, on butter, on sugar, or the hiatus is settled by this latest paper. The problem is there is always another paper coming along later.
Last summer the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a paper in the Journal Science that said the hiatus did not exist. They had “refreshed” some of the data and the hiatus had gone away. It was a very interesting paper, full of questions though many did not think it was the final word on the matter. However the media did. For a science story it got blanket coverage. Many who believed in the hiatus were asked if they would now admit they were wrong. The hiatus was over. It never existed. Official.
But as I said, it was inevitable that another paper would come along.
In the latest issue of the journal Nature Climate Science eleven distinguished scientists published new findings on surface temperature measurements and ocean heat content analysis. It is titled “making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown.” The carefully constructed very first sentence summarizes the diversity of opinion.
“It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”
The evidence they present – a straightforward analysis of the global temperature – is not new. It’s been done before in numerous peer-reviewed papers and over many years in climate sceptical blogs.
“In all three observational datasets the most recent 15-year trend (ending in 2014) is lower than both the latest 30-year and 50-year trends. This divergence occurs at a time of rapid increase in greenhouse gasses (GHGs). A warming slowdown is thus clear in observations; it is also clear that it has been a ‘slowdown’ and not a stop.”
Whether the hiatus is a slowdown, a pause or a stop is debatable. It depends on how you analyse it. But it has clearly not gone away.
One would have thought that this would have been a great story for the world’s news media who were so enthusiastic to bury the hiatus. But no. They are looking the other way again. Almost none of the outlets who trumpeted the end of the hiatus has mentioned this latest research.
The hiatus is good for science. It tells us about natural climate variability of which our knowledge is still very limited. It holds valuable scientific information and in climate science, with it huge political and economic implications, we need all the information we can get.
There are over 40 explanations for the warming hiatus proposed by scientists from small volcanoes, ocean movements, effects in the stratosphere, data gathering problems and many more. They can’t all be right they are all a valuable contribution to a scientific mystery. It shows us that the real science is not settled.
And another thing. About those sceptics who are seeking to deny and undermine climate science. It was the sceptics, not the scientists, who discovered the hiatus, this so-called biggest problem in climate science.
Dr David Whitehouse is the Science Editor of the Global Warming Policy Forum and a former BBC Science Correspondent.
A new paper in a prestigious journal proves a 15-year hiatus in global warming. Why it it being ignored? | Coffee House
So what will be the turning point where they can no longer promote warming in Washington DC while the west coats is t-shirt weather all year round? Death Valley grows 10,000 time in size.
Death Valley (the desert) is about 3000 square miles, and
if it grows to 10,000 times its size would be 30,000,000sq mi.
The Pacific Ocean is about 30,000,000sq mi.'s...
North America is about 9,540,000 sq mi.'s...
I assume you exaggerate for emphasis?
if it grows to 10,000 times its size would be 30,000,000sq mi.
The Pacific Ocean is about 30,000,000sq mi.'s...
North America is about 9,540,000 sq mi.'s...
I assume you exaggerate for emphasis?
Just bad at judging distances without a ruler. From the southern tip of Baja you go to the CA/OR border 2500 km away and then go inland about 12 miles and that would be hot desert as the winds would be pushing the moisture into the Gulf of Alaska. That is about 3M kms so I was off by quite a bit, That help that you now have the landmarks? BTW Death Valley is 3,000 sq km rather than sq miles. I assume if the east coast was getting lake effect snow levels with air coming off the Atlantic then people will be using the 2nd floor as ground level.
That the kind of stuff I put in for the dwama effect. Did it work?
"North America is about 9,540,000 sq mi.'s..."
'about '40', are you trying to claim you got that close and it is a 'rough estimate'?
How about 10,000 x the size of this place?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Pine,_California
That the kind of stuff I put in for the dwama effect. Did it work?
"North America is about 9,540,000 sq mi.'s..."
'about '40', are you trying to claim you got that close and it is a 'rough estimate'?
How about 10,000 x the size of this place?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Pine,_California
No wonder you are worn out, chasing ghosts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley_National_Park
Area 3,373,063 acres (5,270.411 sq mi; 1,365,030 ha; 13,650.30 km2)[1]
Wait till the snowfalls are given in meters per day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley_National_Park#cite_note-acreage-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley_National_Park#cite_note-acreage-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley_National_Park
Area 3,373,063 acres (5,270.411 sq mi; 1,365,030 ha; 13,650.30 km2)[1]
Wait till the snowfalls are given in meters per day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley_National_Park#cite_note-acreage-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley_National_Park#cite_note-acreage-1
Mother Earth been killing us and making life difficult for living things for a long time.
Karmas a bitch I guess.
That 'long time' may have been no longer than the last ice-age as living conditions for the population could have been easier rather than being harder as is the 'normal prediction' it would get easier for the people that lived in the 'green areas'. The normal 'map' shows the green areas in the north and south and a band of desert regions before you hit the green tropics. The green area cannot be eliminated, it would move in the opposite direction as the snow belt began to be a permanent feature. The method I liked was the one that eliminated the deserts and the green areas just linked up, that is as unrealistic as the other version in that desert regions cannot be eliminated, they can be moved though. In North America the west coast would become as drier (and hotter in most places) and it would run in a N/S direction rather than W/E. The west winds would start blowing from the south over the Pacific and that moisture would enter in OR and BC and Alaska as warm rain and a warm wind would accompany it as the water would also do that as the Pacific blob gets warmer. The origin of that wind is the American SW after it has come from Canada's north as a dry cold wind that causes the GOM air to fall as snow rather than rain on the American east coast and Canadian territories along the coast. That snow would then be blown farther north by the same wind system that brought the moisture from the GOM.
The cold wind from Canada's NW would cause the snow and then blow E/W to fill in the void left by the Pacific air going north rather than east.
That local change would be a year round change for all areas and that would mean the UK should get cold north winds and lake effect snow just like the east coast of Canada and the US.
It should be possible to map all that out in greater detail even down to the rises and drops in local temps as they would be the same as they were 40,000 years ago. I've heard a lot about about the mini warm/ice ages in the last few thousand years but not much on the big ones that lasted for 100,000's of years. That would seem to be the normal climate if this 15,000 year period is the extend of 'the warm period between major ice ages'.
The Pacific blob would be a low pressure area of warm air and that wind would mix with the dry winds coming off the western deserts of the US and Mexico. CA/OR and north of that line would see the moist wind start to make landfall the making slow progress until in northern BC and southern Alaska and all moisture would be gone by the time it began to cool off to -40C and head south east of the Rockies all the way to NFLD. Using g00gle earth It could be refined as the mountain ranges could be used as a dividing line and the drainage of the rivers taken into account and the big river would be in what we consider 'biblical flood' stage.
Hope your calculator is all warmed up.
The cold wind from Canada's NW would cause the snow and then blow E/W to fill in the void left by the Pacific air going north rather than east.
That local change would be a year round change for all areas and that would mean the UK should get cold north winds and lake effect snow just like the east coast of Canada and the US.
I don't have anything that supports the above being a solid prediction but this is using your map so perhaps it will enhance my prediction compared to what the 'facts support'. The strip of 'death valley' would exist because the 'Santa Anna wind' that now dries out Calif would be permanent all year round. Other than that 'thin strip the rest of the desert would become green rather than brown or white. The white are would begin at Baffin Is. and go towards NFLD before going south along the coast to about the lowest Great Lake and rain south of that line, a lot of rain, . . . all year round. Further inland it would be the moisture that turns most of the brown area into the green in a line that stretched from the CA/OR border to the GOM and above that would the the 'new Prairies' that now produce two crops per year as they do not suffer the winters that the current farmland does, Frost and ice does take some land away and you might even lose some land to the cold but the extended growing season in the rest of the green area would mean overall production is increased and the population is now in close proximity so shipping is reduced overall.Don't feel bad. I think the IPCC has the same issue.
This only went to the second decimal place. Rounding....
.
It should be possible to map all that out in greater detail even down to the rises and drops in local temps as they would be the same as they were 40,000 years ago. I've heard a lot about about the mini warm/ice ages in the last few thousand years but not much on the big ones that lasted for 100,000's of years. That would seem to be the normal climate if this 15,000 year period is the extend of 'the warm period between major ice ages'.
The Pacific blob would be a low pressure area of warm air and that wind would mix with the dry winds coming off the western deserts of the US and Mexico. CA/OR and north of that line would see the moist wind start to make landfall the making slow progress until in northern BC and southern Alaska and all moisture would be gone by the time it began to cool off to -40C and head south east of the Rockies all the way to NFLD. Using g00gle earth It could be refined as the mountain ranges could be used as a dividing line and the drainage of the rivers taken into account and the big river would be in what we consider 'biblical flood' stage.
Hope your calculator is all warmed up.
OK it might be the greatest scam ever, 90% of the planet including me don't give a ****. It's all about firewood.
Smack pays income taxes religiously, he lets them skim his stuff. He's a disinformation agent, and fish monger, don't believe a fukkin thing he posts.
Smack pays income taxes religiously, he lets them skim his stuff. He's a disinformation agent, and fish monger, don't believe a fukkin thing he posts.
Still i can't be dismissed that way, you know. Answer the question Smack! Are you now or have you ever been an idiot? None of your horse **** man just answer the question.