Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> General Board >> Little Ice Age imminent?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1436335027

Message started by Swagman on Jul 8th, 2015 at 3:57pm

Title: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Swagman on Jul 8th, 2015 at 3:57pm
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/586404/Britain-freezing-winters-slump-solar-activity


Quote:
Britain faces FREEZING winters as slump in solar activity threatens 'little Ice Age'

BRITAIN could face colder than average winters with a plunge in solar activity threatening a new "little ice age" in the next few decades.

Climate experts warn the amount of light and warmth released by the sun is nosediving to levels "not seen for centuries".

They fear a repeat of the so-called 'Maunder Minimum' which triggered Arctic winter whiteouts and led to the River Thames freezing 300 years ago.

The Met Office-led study warns although the effect will be offset by recent global warming, Britain faces years of unusually cold winters.

A spokesman said: "A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United States but wouldn't halt global warming.

"Return of 'grand solar minimum' could affect European and eastern US winters."

Long episodes of low solar activity were seen during the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715 and the 'Dalton Minimum' from 1790 to 1830.

Both periods coincided with colder-than-normal global temperatures earning the title from scientists of "Little Ice Age."

The latest study, published in Nature Communications, found reduced solar activity will lead to an overall cooling of the Earth of 0.1C.

A much bigger cooling effect is expected for Britain, northern Europe and North America where thermometers could drop by 0.8C.

Amanda Maycock, of the University of Cambridge and National Centre for Atmospheric Science, said: "It's important that we consider the potential impact of changes in UV output when looking at future climate."





Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 8th, 2015 at 4:30pm
so let's wait and see the hysterics come in and claim how ludicrous it is. after all, we cant have COOLING and humans in the same biosphere, right?

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Swagman on Jul 8th, 2015 at 5:06pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 4:30pm:
so let's wait and see the hysterics come in and claim how ludicrous it is. after all, we cant have COOLING and humans in the same biosphere, right?


Yes sunspot activity apparently has no effect on climate according to the Alarmists?  It's the hand of man.... ::)

The point is that it (significant climate change) occurred naturally and ended naturally.

A cooling event would be much more devastating than warming.

The medieval warming event coincided with huge population explosions around the world.  More land to cultivate and temperate weather meant stable crop productions.

The Scandinavians expanded into Greenland & North America but had to retreat due to the onset of the little ice age. 

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by innocentbystander. on Jul 8th, 2015 at 5:34pm
Shouldn't take them long to rejig it to man is causing cooling  ;D

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 8th, 2015 at 6:15pm

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 5:34pm:
Shouldn't take them long to rejig it to man is causing cooling  ;D


actually it will be Anthropogenic Catastrophic Cooling, Warming, Floods and Droughts, Bushfires and Stormss or ACCWFDBS

catchy title huh?  I think we all know what it will be shortened to....

BS

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Greens_Win on Jul 8th, 2015 at 9:05pm

Quote:
Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050.

www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html


This thread is based on a hypothetical experiment.
That explains the question mark at the end of the title.
Nothing happening here.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 8th, 2015 at 9:30pm
Hi Swagman -
I have a whole 87 page thread on this topic:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1421385253/0


forgiven

namaste

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Swagman on Jul 8th, 2015 at 11:16pm
...hmm I don't venture down to those cliquey boards very often  :-?


Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by The Grappler on Jul 8th, 2015 at 11:21pm
No doubt whatsoever - it's farken cold down here and that's before the massive snowfalls predicted for the Alps this weekend.....  snow down to 500m - we'll see it to north and south if that happens....

Now THAT's an Ice Age.....

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:09am

____ wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 9:05pm:

Quote:
Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050.

www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html


This thread is based on a hypothetical experiment.
That explains the question mark at the end of the title.
Nothing happening here.



just ignore all evidence that you find inconvenient.  It is the Green Way.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Greens_Win on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:11am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:09am:

____ wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 9:05pm:

Quote:
Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050.

www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html


This thread is based on a hypothetical experiment.
That explains the question mark at the end of the title.
Nothing happening here.



just ignore all evidence that you find inconvenient.  It is the Green Way.



There is no evidence.
This thread is based on 'what if'.

That's why there is a question mark in the title.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Sprintcyclist on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:21am

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 11:21pm:
No doubt whatsoever - it's farken cold down here and that's before the massive snowfalls predicted for the Alps this weekend.....  snow down to 500m - we'll see it to north and south if that happens....

Now THAT's an Ice Age.....



I agree. We are set for a record cold few days up here in Brisso.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:31am

____ wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:11am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:09am:

____ wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 9:05pm:

Quote:
Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050.

www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html


This thread is based on a hypothetical experiment.
That explains the question mark at the end of the title.
Nothing happening here.



just ignore all evidence that you find inconvenient.  It is the Green Way.



There is no evidence.
This thread is based on 'what if'.

That's why there is a question mark in the title.


not a great fan of science, are you?

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Sir lastnail on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:37am
Weren't the poms having a heat wave recently with mid 30's temperatures ?

And India was definitely having one of the worst heatwaves with 50 degrees temperatures and 1000 people dying !!!

If it was a mini ice age then you would expect all temperatures across the globe to be dropping with none of these heatwaves !!

This so called mini ice age and heatwaves coexisting are just extreme weather events as postulated by the global warming science !!

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 9th, 2015 at 1:51pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:37am:
Weren't the poms having a heat wave recently with mid 30's temperatures ?

And India was definitely having one of the worst heatwaves with 50 degrees temperatures and 1000 people dying !!!

If it was a mini ice age then you would expect all temperatures across the globe to be dropping with none of these heatwaves !!

This so called mini ice age and heatwaves coexisting are just extreme weather events as postulated by the global warming science !!


adelaide is having its coldest winter in a long time and this weekend expected to go well below zero.  record cold.

but that doesnt count right? because it is just 'weather' while the heatwaves are difference?


btw do your maths. 1000 indians dying of heat is the same ratio as one dying from heat in adelaide - which happens every 45 degree day.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Jul 9th, 2015 at 2:50pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 1:51pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:37am:
Weren't the poms having a heat wave recently with mid 30's temperatures ?

And India was definitely having one of the worst heatwaves with 50 degrees temperatures and 1000 people dying !!!

If it was a mini ice age then you would expect all temperatures across the globe to be dropping with none of these heatwaves !!

This so called mini ice age and heatwaves coexisting are just extreme weather events as postulated by the global warming science !!


adelaide is having its coldest winter in a long time and this weekend expected to go well below zero.  record cold.

but that doesnt count right? because it is just 'weather' while the heatwaves are difference?


btw do your maths. 1000 indians dying of heat is the same ratio as one dying from heat in adelaide - which happens every 45 degree day.


This is trivial in the bigger picture. USA experienced abnormal cold weather recently but average temperatures still rose despite the cold snaps.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jul 9th, 2015 at 4:10pm

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 11:21pm:
No doubt whatsoever - it's farken cold down here and that's before the massive snowfalls predicted for the Alps this weekend.....  snow down to 500m - we'll see it to north and south if that happens....

Now THAT's an Ice Age.....

If you can post a time-series graph of snowfalls in these aussie alps then that would be great!

Quantitative argument is great!

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Raven on Jul 9th, 2015 at 4:12pm
Technically we are still in the last Ice Age due to the presence of ice at the Poles.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jul 9th, 2015 at 4:15pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 1:51pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:37am:
Weren't the poms having a heat wave recently with mid 30's temperatures ?

And India was definitely having one of the worst heatwaves with 50 degrees temperatures and 1000 people dying !!!

If it was a mini ice age then you would expect all temperatures across the globe to be dropping with none of these heatwaves !!

This so called mini ice age and heatwaves coexisting are just extreme weather events as postulated by the global warming science !!


adelaide is having its coldest winter in a long time and this weekend expected to go well below zero.  record cold.

but that doesnt count right? because it is just 'weather' while the heatwaves are difference?


btw do your maths. 1000 indians dying of heat is the same ratio as one dying from heat in adelaide - which happens every 45 degree day.

Yes, but sir nail is simply saying it's hardly an ice age!

Science doesn't prove: it disproves!

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jul 9th, 2015 at 4:16pm

Raven wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 4:12pm:
Technically we are still in the last Ice Age due to the presence of ice at the Poles.

Nomenclature: thanx!

::) ::)

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Swagman on Jul 9th, 2015 at 5:00pm

Raven wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 4:12pm:
Technically we are still in the last Ice Age due to the presence of ice at the Poles.


The Holocene?

Warming occurred naturally......no help from ape descendants.....?   How is this so...?

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 9th, 2015 at 5:14pm

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 1:51pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:37am:
Weren't the poms having a heat wave recently with mid 30's temperatures ?

And India was definitely having one of the worst heatwaves with 50 degrees temperatures and 1000 people dying !!!

If it was a mini ice age then you would expect all temperatures across the globe to be dropping with none of these heatwaves !!

This so called mini ice age and heatwaves coexisting are just extreme weather events as postulated by the global warming science !!


adelaide is having its coldest winter in a long time and this weekend expected to go well below zero.  record cold.

but that doesnt count right? because it is just 'weather' while the heatwaves are difference?


btw do your maths. 1000 indians dying of heat is the same ratio as one dying from heat in adelaide - which happens every 45 degree day.


This is trivial in the bigger picture. USA experienced abnormal cold weather recently but average temperatures still rose despite the cold snaps.



but NOT to record figures.  it it isnt a record it isnt unprecedented and if it isnt unprecedented then you cannot claim it is any indication of change.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 9th, 2015 at 5:18pm

Swagman wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 5:00pm:

Raven wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 4:12pm:
Technically we are still in the last Ice Age due to the presence of ice at the Poles.


The Holocene?

Warming occurred naturally......no help from ape descendants.....?   How is this so...?

Milankovitch cycles

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/421974/1295957/Info+sheet+%236.pdf/be5d8b4e-5c2b-429a-b4c9-69c9b5611477

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 9th, 2015 at 5:26pm

Swagman wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 5:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 4:30pm:
so let's wait and see the hysterics come in and claim how ludicrous it is. after all, we cant have COOLING and humans in the same biosphere, right?


Yes sunspot activity apparently has no effect on climate according to the Alarmists?  It's the hand of man.... ::)

Whoever said that sunspot activity apparently has no effect on climate ?

Please don't start telling lies - it is bad enough thatLongweekend continually does it.

BTW Longweekend.  Still waiting for an answer.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1434949445/34#34

You told us that "even UK MET and NASA accept the 17year pause" (in global warming)."

Please show us some evidence of this please.

Please don't run away again with your pathetic cry of"I already have".  We both know you haven't  - you are simply a liar.

If you are not a liar-show us now.  Show us where the UK MET and NASA accept a "17 year pause" in global warming.


NASAs website says this:
Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7


and this:
Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8


and this:
Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.


and this:
Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


No mention of a "17 year pause" in global warming.  You are a liar.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jul 9th, 2015 at 5:36pm

Swagman wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 5:00pm:

Raven wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 4:12pm:
Technically we are still in the last Ice Age due to the presence of ice at the Poles.


The Holocene?

Warming occurred naturally......no help from ape descendants.....?   How is this so...?

Rates of change!

Thanx for playing!!

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jul 9th, 2015 at 5:38pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 5:14pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 2:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 1:51pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:37am:
Weren't the poms having a heat wave recently with mid 30's temperatures ?

And India was definitely having one of the worst heatwaves with 50 degrees temperatures and 1000 people dying !!!

If it was a mini ice age then you would expect all temperatures across the globe to be dropping with none of these heatwaves !!

This so called mini ice age and heatwaves coexisting are just extreme weather events as postulated by the global warming science !!


adelaide is having its coldest winter in a long time and this weekend expected to go well below zero.  record cold.

but that doesnt count right? because it is just 'weather' while the heatwaves are difference?


btw do your maths. 1000 indians dying of heat is the same ratio as one dying from heat in adelaide - which happens every 45 degree day.


This is trivial in the bigger picture. USA experienced abnormal cold weather recently but average temperatures still rose despite the cold snaps.



but NOT to record figures.  it it isnt a record it isnt unprecedented and if it isnt unprecedented then you cannot claim it is any indication of change.

You are forgetting RATES OF CHANGE!

Not to good on your facts and figures are you ?

;) ;)

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by copperinternetISARORT on Jul 9th, 2015 at 5:41pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 5:26pm:

Swagman wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 5:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 4:30pm:
so let's wait and see the hysterics come in and claim how ludicrous it is. after all, we cant have COOLING and humans in the same biosphere, right?


Yes sunspot activity apparently has no effect on climate according to the Alarmists?  It's the hand of man.... ::)

Whoever said that sunspot activity apparently has no effect on climate ?

Please don't start telling lies - it is bad enough thatLongweekend continually does it.

BTW Longweekend.  Still waiting for an answer.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1434949445/34#34

You told us that "even UK MET and NASA accept the 17year pause" (in global warming)."

Please show us some evidence of this please.

Please don't run away again with your pathetic cry of"I already have".  We both know you haven't  - you are simply a liar.

If you are not a liar-show us now.  Show us where the UK MET and NASA accept a "17 year pause" in global warming.


NASAs website says this:
Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7


and this:
Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8


and this:
Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.


and this:
Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


No mention of a "17 year pause" in global warming.  You are a liar.

Swaggy loves a good lie to FIRST put son on the backfoot and THEN let the alcoholic dribbling take over...

Yeh, because Lib voters have class and are a cut above  :D :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by innocentbystander. on Jul 9th, 2015 at 5:45pm
Did you crack the keypad code at the asylum again copper brain?

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 9th, 2015 at 6:15pm

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 5:45pm:
Did you crack the keypad code at the asylum again copper brain?


he is truly a psycho.  Almost nobody reads his stupidity and even fewer respond. I basically skip over everything he says figuring it to be delusional, BS or both.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by innocentbystander. on Jul 9th, 2015 at 6:54pm
Yes quite bizarre indeed, most definitely some sort of dope fiend.  ::)

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 9th, 2015 at 7:13pm
oh noes, the lib voters are pretending the best drugs don't come from the private schools again!

Is the mansion cold again and you need to take some drugs to warm up and forget your loneliness from everyone you ever stepped on?


Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 9th, 2015 at 7:30pm

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 6:54pm:
Yes quite bizarre indeed, most definitely some sort of dope fiend.  ::)


he seems to come in and out of asylums, but the content is always the same - insane.  in this case he is now fixating on copper.  Perhaps he ate some copper wire?

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Sir lastnail on Jul 9th, 2015 at 8:19pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 1:51pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:37am:
Weren't the poms having a heat wave recently with mid 30's temperatures ?

And India was definitely having one of the worst heatwaves with 50 degrees temperatures and 1000 people dying !!!

If it was a mini ice age then you would expect all temperatures across the globe to be dropping with none of these heatwaves !!

This so called mini ice age and heatwaves coexisting are just extreme weather events as postulated by the global warming science !!


adelaide is having its coldest winter in a long time and this weekend expected to go well below zero.  record cold.

but that doesnt count right? because it is just 'weather' while the heatwaves are difference?


btw do your maths. 1000 indians dying of heat is the same ratio as one dying from heat in adelaide - which happens every 45 degree day.


And so is Melbourne.

The point is the temperatures are hitting record highs in India for longer periods of time. If there was a mini ice age you would expect the exact opposite.

What we are now seeing is extreme weather events as predicted by the global warming science but don't let the science get in the way of setting fire to the remaining reserves of coal :(

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Very_Vinnie on Jul 9th, 2015 at 8:24pm
c




Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Very_Vinnie on Jul 9th, 2015 at 8:28pm

Quote:
...  the effect will be offset by recent global warming* ...




* ... Indicating - and a confirmation - that factors increasing global average temperatures remain a CONSTANT

So much for "Professor" David Rose's claim of "no rise in global average temperatures in 20 years" - when each year has STILLbroken the record held by the previous year, more often than NOT





Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by UnSubRocky on Jul 9th, 2015 at 8:51pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:37am:
Weren't the poms having a heat wave recently with mid 30's temperatures ?

And India was definitely having one of the worst heatwaves with 50 degrees temperatures and 1000 people dying !!!

If it was a mini ice age then you would expect all temperatures across the globe to be dropping with none of these heatwaves !!

This so called mini ice age and heatwaves coexisting are just extreme weather events as postulated by the global warming science !!


The heat can blow in from mainland Europe into England with little problem during times when a high pressure system is situated over eastern England. This heat could be blown in from the Sahara during the middle of summer. We had that kind of conditions when a northern high blew hot dry air across Australia and gave Qld record high temperatures.

1000 Indians dying could be the equivalent of 5 Australians dying from heat exhaustion. The Indians that died were mainly the homeless and underprivileged.

If people can claim that heatwaves are a result of global warming, then it shouldn't be such a stretch of the imagination to think cooler temperatures being the result of global cooling.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by innocentbystander. on Jul 9th, 2015 at 9:02pm

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 8:28pm:

Quote:
...  the effect will be offset by recent global warming* ...




* ... Indicating - and a confirmation - that factors increasing global average temperatures remain a CONSTANT

So much for "Professor" David Rose's claim of "no rise in global average temperatures in 20 years" - when each year has STILLbroken the record held by the previous year, more often than NOT





Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by The_Barnacle on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:17pm

Swagman wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 5:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 4:30pm:
so let's wait and see the hysterics come in and claim how ludicrous it is. after all, we cant have COOLING and humans in the same biosphere, right?


Yes sunspot activity apparently has no effect on climate according to the Alarmists?  It's the hand of man.... ::)

The point is that it (significant climate change) occurred naturally and ended naturally.


Of course sunspot activity has an effect on climate. No one is disputing that. The Maunder Minimum has been known about for centuries.

It is a false dichotomy to say that because there have been natural changes to the climate in the past that the current warming can't be man made.

All things being equal, if you increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere you will produce warming. That is pretty basic science.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:23pm

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:17pm:

Swagman wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 5:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 4:30pm:
so let's wait and see the hysterics come in and claim how ludicrous it is. after all, we cant have COOLING and humans in the same biosphere, right?


Yes sunspot activity apparently has no effect on climate according to the Alarmists?  It's the hand of man.... ::)

The point is that it (significant climate change) occurred naturally and ended naturally.


Of course sunspot activity has an effect on climate. No one is disputing that. The Maunder Minimum has been known about for centuries.

It is a false dichotomy to say that because there have been natural changes to the climate in the past that the current warming can't be man made.

All things being equal, if you increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere you will produce warming. That is pretty basic science.

Swaggy is trying to pretend there is no such thing as a complex system: he argues interest rates equals employment rates because there is no such thing as complexity!

Should I turn it up to 11 or will he finally admit to understanding all along and thus admit to trying to put his hand down the pants of the unborn?

We shall wait and ponder  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Jul 10th, 2015 at 12:43am
UK is predicitng their highest temperature ever in an expected heat wave with 101+ F temperature expectation.

UK has already experienced the hottest July day ever recorded.

I don't see anyone predicting an ice age coming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/11719200/Second-British-heatwave-could-bring-hottest-ever-temperature.html


Quote:
Britain is set to sizzle in a second heatwave at the end of the July when temperatures could soar past 100F to reach the highest level ever recorded in the UK.
Last week’s hot spell brought the warmest ever July day but conditions will revert to normal summer conditions for the next fortnight, with showers and temperatures hovering around the low 70Fs. (low 20Cs)
However by the end of July and beginning of August a second wave of very hot air is expected to push up from central and southern Europe bringing sweltering heat.
Some forecasters predicted it could beat the all-time record for Britain, when the mercury hit 101F (38.5C) at Brogdale, Kent, on August 10, 2003.

Brian Gaze of The Weather Outlook said: “The year’s hottest temperatures usually occur in late July or early August.
“As pressure models favour more African hot air over Europe pulsing to the UK, the 101F (38.5C) record could go.”
• UK heatwave in pictures: Britain basks in glorious summer weather

Met Office forecaster Simon Partridge added: “Temperatures certainly look warm after July 19 in the South and another plume would make it hot. It’s too early to put detail on whether it will be hotter than we’ve had.”
The Met Office July-September contingency forecast, being briefed to Government, councils, and emergency services, said: “Computer models show higher-than-average pressure dominating Europe through summer and early autumn - a strong signal for above-average temperatures across central and southern Europe.
“High pressure over northern Europe would allow higher temperatures from central and southern Europe to spread into the UK.”
The heatwave went out with a bang over the weekend when thunder and lightning storms brought more than half-a-month’s rain in an hour hit parts of East Anglia and Dorset, flooding roads.
A 51-year-old hillwalker was left fighting for his life after being struck by lightning in the Brecon Beacons at Pen y Fan.
Heavy and frequent showers will return for much of the country by Monday but will be at their worst in the north and west of England and Scotland and Northern Ireland.
MeteroGroup forecaster John Lee said temperatures will begin to climb again from Wednesday: "Generally, it's going to be quite unsettled on Sunday and the first part of the week.
"By Wednesday it will start to settle down and the sunshine will come out.
"It certainly won't be the 98F (37C) degree highs that we had last week but I think that is a relief to most people.
"We could start to see temperatures reaching (84F) 29C though by the end of the week."
The highest temperature in the recent heatwave was recorded on Wednesday at (98.1F) 36.7C at Heathrow, breaking the record for a July day, while many other places broke the (86F) 30C mark.

While many bathed in the rare temperatures, others endured struggling train services and heavy traffic as road and train track surfaces began to melt in the heat.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 10th, 2015 at 12:58am

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 12:43am:
UK is predicitng their highest temperature ever in an expected heat wave with 101+ F temperature expectation.

UK has already experienced the hottest July day ever recorded.

I don't see anyone predicting an ice age coming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/11719200/Second-British-heatwave-could-bring-hottest-ever-temperature.html


Quote:
Britain is set to sizzle in a second heatwave at the end of the July when temperatures could soar past 100F to reach the highest level ever recorded in the UK.
Last week’s hot spell brought the warmest ever July day but conditions will revert to normal summer conditions for the next fortnight, with showers and temperatures hovering around the low 70Fs. (low 20Cs)
However by the end of July and beginning of August a second wave of very hot air is expected to push up from central and southern Europe bringing sweltering heat.
Some forecasters predicted it could beat the all-time record for Britain, when the mercury hit 101F (38.5C) at Brogdale, Kent, on August 10, 2003.

Brian Gaze of The Weather Outlook said: “The year’s hottest temperatures usually occur in late July or early August.
“As pressure models favour more African hot air over Europe pulsing to the UK, the 101F (38.5C) record could go.”
• UK heatwave in pictures: Britain basks in glorious summer weather

Met Office forecaster Simon Partridge added: “Temperatures certainly look warm after July 19 in the South and another plume would make it hot. It’s too early to put detail on whether it will be hotter than we’ve had.”
The Met Office July-September contingency forecast, being briefed to Government, councils, and emergency services, said: “Computer models show higher-than-average pressure dominating Europe through summer and early autumn - a strong signal for above-average temperatures across central and southern Europe.
“High pressure over northern Europe would allow higher temperatures from central and southern Europe to spread into the UK.”
The heatwave went out with a bang over the weekend when thunder and lightning storms brought more than half-a-month’s rain in an hour hit parts of East Anglia and Dorset, flooding roads.
A 51-year-old hillwalker was left fighting for his life after being struck by lightning in the Brecon Beacons at Pen y Fan.
Heavy and frequent showers will return for much of the country by Monday but will be at their worst in the north and west of England and Scotland and Northern Ireland.
MeteroGroup forecaster John Lee said temperatures will begin to climb again from Wednesday: "Generally, it's going to be quite unsettled on Sunday and the first part of the week.
"By Wednesday it will start to settle down and the sunshine will come out.
"It certainly won't be the 98F (37C) degree highs that we had last week but I think that is a relief to most people.
"We could start to see temperatures reaching (84F) 29C though by the end of the week."
The highest temperature in the recent heatwave was recorded on Wednesday at (98.1F) 36.7C at Heathrow, breaking the record for a July day, while many other places broke the (86F) 30C mark.

While many bathed in the rare temperatures, others endured struggling train services and heavy traffic as road and train track surfaces began to melt in the heat.

Yeh, but, what about in the sahara and the sahel?

Just ask uncle bobby: the one that pretends he doesn't know what the definition of 'multi-year ice'is after 87 pages of youtube videos- yeh, that guy!

:D

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Jul 10th, 2015 at 1:21am

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 12:58am:

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 12:43am:
UK is predicitng their highest temperature ever in an expected heat wave with 101+ F temperature expectation.

UK has already experienced the hottest July day ever recorded.

I don't see anyone predicting an ice age coming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/11719200/Second-British-heatwave-could-bring-hottest-ever-temperature.html


Quote:
Britain is set to sizzle in a second heatwave at the end of the July when temperatures could soar past 100F to reach the highest level ever recorded in the UK.
Last week’s hot spell brought the warmest ever July day but conditions will revert to normal summer conditions for the next fortnight, with showers and temperatures hovering around the low 70Fs. (low 20Cs)
However by the end of July and beginning of August a second wave of very hot air is expected to push up from central and southern Europe bringing sweltering heat.
Some forecasters predicted it could beat the all-time record for Britain, when the mercury hit 101F (38.5C) at Brogdale, Kent, on August 10, 2003.

Brian Gaze of The Weather Outlook said: “The year’s hottest temperatures usually occur in late July or early August.
“As pressure models favour more African hot air over Europe pulsing to the UK, the 101F (38.5C) record could go.”
• UK heatwave in pictures: Britain basks in glorious summer weather

Met Office forecaster Simon Partridge added: “Temperatures certainly look warm after July 19 in the South and another plume would make it hot. It’s too early to put detail on whether it will be hotter than we’ve had.”
The Met Office July-September contingency forecast, being briefed to Government, councils, and emergency services, said: “Computer models show higher-than-average pressure dominating Europe through summer and early autumn - a strong signal for above-average temperatures across central and southern Europe.
“High pressure over northern Europe would allow higher temperatures from central and southern Europe to spread into the UK.”
The heatwave went out with a bang over the weekend when thunder and lightning storms brought more than half-a-month’s rain in an hour hit parts of East Anglia and Dorset, flooding roads.
A 51-year-old hillwalker was left fighting for his life after being struck by lightning in the Brecon Beacons at Pen y Fan.
Heavy and frequent showers will return for much of the country by Monday but will be at their worst in the north and west of England and Scotland and Northern Ireland.
MeteroGroup forecaster John Lee said temperatures will begin to climb again from Wednesday: "Generally, it's going to be quite unsettled on Sunday and the first part of the week.
"By Wednesday it will start to settle down and the sunshine will come out.
"It certainly won't be the 98F (37C) degree highs that we had last week but I think that is a relief to most people.
"We could start to see temperatures reaching (84F) 29C though by the end of the week."
The highest temperature in the recent heatwave was recorded on Wednesday at (98.1F) 36.7C at Heathrow, breaking the record for a July day, while many other places broke the (86F) 30C mark.

While many bathed in the rare temperatures, others endured struggling train services and heavy traffic as road and train track surfaces began to melt in the heat.

Yeh, but, what about in the sahara and the sahel?

Just ask uncle bobby: the one that pretends he doesn't know what the definition of 'multi-year ice'is after 87 pages of youtube videos- yeh, that guy!

:D


Bobby is a bigger conundrum than climate change.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 10th, 2015 at 1:32am

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 1:21am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 12:58am:

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 12:43am:
UK is predicitng their highest temperature ever in an expected heat wave with 101+ F temperature expectation.

UK has already experienced the hottest July day ever recorded.

I don't see anyone predicting an ice age coming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/11719200/Second-British-heatwave-could-bring-hottest-ever-temperature.html


Quote:
Britain is set to sizzle in a second heatwave at the end of the July when temperatures could soar past 100F to reach the highest level ever recorded in the UK.
Last week’s hot spell brought the warmest ever July day but conditions will revert to normal summer conditions for the next fortnight, with showers and temperatures hovering around the low 70Fs. (low 20Cs)
However by the end of July and beginning of August a second wave of very hot air is expected to push up from central and southern Europe bringing sweltering heat.
Some forecasters predicted it could beat the all-time record for Britain, when the mercury hit 101F (38.5C) at Brogdale, Kent, on August 10, 2003.

Brian Gaze of The Weather Outlook said: “The year’s hottest temperatures usually occur in late July or early August.
“As pressure models favour more African hot air over Europe pulsing to the UK, the 101F (38.5C) record could go.”
• UK heatwave in pictures: Britain basks in glorious summer weather

Met Office forecaster Simon Partridge added: “Temperatures certainly look warm after July 19 in the South and another plume would make it hot. It’s too early to put detail on whether it will be hotter than we’ve had.”
The Met Office July-September contingency forecast, being briefed to Government, councils, and emergency services, said: “Computer models show higher-than-average pressure dominating Europe through summer and early autumn - a strong signal for above-average temperatures across central and southern Europe.
“High pressure over northern Europe would allow higher temperatures from central and southern Europe to spread into the UK.”
The heatwave went out with a bang over the weekend when thunder and lightning storms brought more than half-a-month’s rain in an hour hit parts of East Anglia and Dorset, flooding roads.
A 51-year-old hillwalker was left fighting for his life after being struck by lightning in the Brecon Beacons at Pen y Fan.
Heavy and frequent showers will return for much of the country by Monday but will be at their worst in the north and west of England and Scotland and Northern Ireland.
MeteroGroup forecaster John Lee said temperatures will begin to climb again from Wednesday: "Generally, it's going to be quite unsettled on Sunday and the first part of the week.
"By Wednesday it will start to settle down and the sunshine will come out.
"It certainly won't be the 98F (37C) degree highs that we had last week but I think that is a relief to most people.
"We could start to see temperatures reaching (84F) 29C though by the end of the week."
The highest temperature in the recent heatwave was recorded on Wednesday at (98.1F) 36.7C at Heathrow, breaking the record for a July day, while many other places broke the (86F) 30C mark.

While many bathed in the rare temperatures, others endured struggling train services and heavy traffic as road and train track surfaces began to melt in the heat.

Yeh, but, what about in the sahara and the sahel?

Just ask uncle bobby: the one that pretends he doesn't know what the definition of 'multi-year ice'is after 87 pages of youtube videos- yeh, that guy!

:D


Bobby is a bigger conundrum than climate change.

I think bobby has two poles and the rest of the story is deeply boring yet fascinatingly so...  ;D ;D

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 10th, 2015 at 9:59am

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 8:28pm:

Quote:
...  the effect will be offset by recent global warming* ...




* ... Indicating - and a confirmation - that factors increasing global average temperatures remain a CONSTANT

So much for "Professor" David Rose's claim of "no rise in global average temperatures in 20 years" - when each year has STILLbroken the record held by the previous year, more often than NOT



that is complete garbage.  the FACT is that the last 18 years has had no statistically valid change in temperature.

I know that confuses you but feel free to bluster and pretend otherwise.  That is your strength,

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 10th, 2015 at 10:02am

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:17pm:

Swagman wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 5:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 4:30pm:
so let's wait and see the hysterics come in and claim how ludicrous it is. after all, we cant have COOLING and humans in the same biosphere, right?


Yes sunspot activity apparently has no effect on climate according to the Alarmists?  It's the hand of man.... ::)

The point is that it (significant climate change) occurred naturally and ended naturally.


Of course sunspot activity has an effect on climate. No one is disputing that. The Maunder Minimum has been known about for centuries.

It is a false dichotomy to say that because there have been natural changes to the climate in the past that the current warming can't be man made.  It is equally true that it is a false dichotomy to claim that current warming is man-made when all of history declares the opposite.

All things being equal, if you increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere you will produce warming. That is pretty basic science.   Except it isnt true or that simple.  CO2 concentration shave been increasing in the last 20 years and yet temperature has not.  That conclusively disproves the theory of a linear simplistic relationship.


Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by The Grappler on Jul 10th, 2015 at 10:57am
Not down here - it's too friggin' cold....

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 10th, 2015 at 12:22pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 9:59am:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 8:28pm:

Quote:
...  the effect will be offset by recent global warming* ...




* ... Indicating - and a confirmation - that factors increasing global average temperatures remain a CONSTANT

So much for "Professor" David Rose's claim of "no rise in global average temperatures in 20 years" - when each year has STILLbroken the record held by the previous year, more often than NOT



that is complete garbage.  the FACT is that the last 18 years has had no statistically valid change in temperature.

I know that confuses you but feel free to bluster and pretend otherwise.  That is your strength,

The FACT is that in the last 18 years - the planet has continued to warm

The FACT is that you have been caught red-handed telling deliberate lies by claiming that NASA and the UK Met support your "no warming in 18 years" nonsense.

The FACT is that you have been asked many many times to show us where NASA and the UK Met have ever said that there has been "no warming for 18 years"

The FACT is that you cannot show us this - because you are simply lying.  So you simply run away like a little girl - then repeat the lie again on some new thread.

Don't you think it is time you grew up and apologised for lying to the forum?  You are not fooling anybody.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Greens_Win on Jul 10th, 2015 at 12:38pm
Longweekend is being so belted in this thread.


Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Jul 10th, 2015 at 1:47pm

____ wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 12:38pm:
Longweekend is being so belted in this thread.


Longweekend58 is the antichrist of climate science.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Greens_Win on Jul 10th, 2015 at 1:54pm

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 1:47pm:

____ wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 12:38pm:
Longweekend is being so belted in this thread.


Longweekend58 is the antichrist of climate science.



More stoned pixie at the bottom of the garden.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 10th, 2015 at 4:05pm

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 12:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 9:59am:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 8:28pm:

Quote:
...  the effect will be offset by recent global warming* ...




* ... Indicating - and a confirmation - that factors increasing global average temperatures remain a CONSTANT

So much for "Professor" David Rose's claim of "no rise in global average temperatures in 20 years" - when each year has STILLbroken the record held by the previous year, more often than NOT



that is complete garbage.  the FACT is that the last 18 years has had no statistically valid change in temperature.

I know that confuses you but feel free to bluster and pretend otherwise.  That is your strength,

The FACT is that in the last 18 years - the planet has continued to warm  except it HASNT and it is PROVEN by temperature stats which you routinely reject, misinterpret or refuse to look at.

The FACT is that you have been caught red-handed telling deliberate lies by claiming that NASA and the UK Met support your "no warming in 18 years" nonsense.  well you can keep believing that but it will mean you are a liar.  both organisations both accept and seek to explain the pause.

The FACT is that you have been asked many many times to show us where NASA and the UK Met have ever said that there has been "no warming for 18 years" and have done so multiple times at which point you run away and come back a week later making this same claim

The FACT is that you cannot show us this - because you are simply lying.  So you simply run away like a little girl - then repeat the lie again on some new thread.

Don't you think it is time you grew up and apologised for lying to the forum?  You are not fooling anybody.


hey rabbit-droppings... your hysteria is showing!

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 10th, 2015 at 4:06pm

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 1:47pm:

____ wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 12:38pm:
Longweekend is being so belted in this thread.


Longweekend58 is the antichrist of climate science.


and you are nothing more than a mental patient

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Jul 10th, 2015 at 4:30pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 4:06pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 1:47pm:

____ wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 12:38pm:
Longweekend is being so belted in this thread.


Longweekend58 is the antichrist of climate science.


and you are nothing more than a mental patient


You must be tired and emotional. Your insults are getting lame and weaker.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 10th, 2015 at 4:37pm

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 4:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 4:06pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 1:47pm:

____ wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 12:38pm:
Longweekend is being so belted in this thread.


Longweekend58 is the antichrist of climate science.


and you are nothing more than a mental patient


You must be tired and emotional. Your insults are getting lame and weaker.



once you reach the level of stupidity and ignorance that you have attained, it gets progressively hard to insult you.  after all, you are by your own admission, stupid, foolish, ignorant, uneducated and mentally unsound.

that doesnt leave a lot for me to add.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by rabbitoh08 on Jul 10th, 2015 at 6:05pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 12:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 9:59am:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 8:28pm:

Quote:
...  the effect will be offset by recent global warming* ...




* ... Indicating - and a confirmation - that factors increasing global average temperatures remain a CONSTANT

So much for "Professor" David Rose's claim of "no rise in global average temperatures in 20 years" - when each year has STILLbroken the record held by the previous year, more often than NOT



that is complete garbage.  the FACT is that the last 18 years has had no statistically valid change in temperature.

I know that confuses you but feel free to bluster and pretend otherwise.  That is your strength,

The FACT is that in the last 18 years - the planet has continued to warm  except it HASNT and it is PROVEN by temperature stats which you routinely reject, misinterpret or refuse to look at.

The FACT is that you have been caught red-handed telling deliberate lies by claiming that NASA and the UK Met support your "no warming in 18 years" nonsense.  well you can keep believing that but it will mean you are a liar.  both organisations both accept and seek to explain the pause.

The FACT is that you have been asked many many times to show us where NASA and the UK Met have ever said that there has been "no warming for 18 years" and have done so multiple times at which point you run away and come back a week later making this same claim

The FACT is that you cannot show us this - because you are simply lying.  So you simply run away like a little girl - then repeat the lie again on some new thread.

Don't you think it is time you grew up and apologised for lying to the forum?  You are not fooling anybody.


hey rabbit-droppings... your hysteria is showing!

And yet again - no answer.  You have been caught red-handed telling deliberate lies by claiming that NASA and the UK Met support your "no warming in 18 years" nonsense. 

Once again you are asked to show evidence where NASA and the UK Met have ever said that there has been "no warming for 18 years".  ANd once again you come up with the same pathetic lie "have done so multiple times"          

No you haven't liar.  If you had  - you would show us again.

Caught red-handed lying.

Let me help you liar.  Here is the NASA website:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Where do they say there has been "no warming for 18 years"?  Could you show us?

All I see is:
Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7


and this:
Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8


and this:
Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.


and this:
Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa. 
      

No mention of an "no warming for 18 years"?   


Do you really think you are fooling anyone liar?


Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by The Grappler on Jul 10th, 2015 at 7:21pm
"  the effect will be offset by recent global warming"

.....so when we freeze our asses off here, some kaffir up north will cop a hot day?  Buggar....

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Jul 10th, 2015 at 7:37pm
I see a new paper Nieves et al (2015), once again attempts to explain the pause.

'Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating

Recent modeling studies have proposed different scenarios to explain the slowdown in surface temperature in the most recent decade. Some of these studies seem to support the idea of internal variability and/or rearrangement of heat between the surface and the ocean interior. Others suggest that radiative forcing might also play a role. Our examination of observational data over the past two decades shows some significant differences compared to model results from reanalyses, and provides the most definitive explanation of how the heat was redistributed. We find that cooling in the top 100-meter layer of the Pacific Ocean was mainly compensated by warming in the 100- to 300-meter layer of the Indian and Pacific Oceans in the past decade since 2003. '

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/07/08/science.aaa4521.abstract Paywalled

Extracts:
'Furthermore, as previously shown for interannual fluctuations (11), the decade long hiatus that began in 2003 is the result of a redistribution of heat within the ocean, rather than a change in the net warming rate.'

'Comparison of several of the most commonly used reanalyses with ocean observations raises concerns about their fidelity in simulating temperature changes, or in quantitatively explaining the redistribution of heat associated with the recent surface temperature hiatus.'

'Reanalyses are also inconsistent with ocean observations, in terms of the vertical and regional distribution of heating. This is true for both global and basin-wide averages (see bottom panel of Fig. 1 and figs. S8 to S12). '

'Together, these findings suggest no significant increase in the rate of warming below 700 m since 2003'


Corresponding author. E-mail: veronica.nieves@jpl.nasa.gov



Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by innocentbystander. on Jul 10th, 2015 at 7:40pm

lee wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 7:37pm:
I see a new paper Nieves et al (2015), once again attempts to explain the pause.




Better add that to the list  ;D





List of excuses for ‘the pause’ in global warming



1) Low solar activity

2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

3) Chinese coal use [debunked]

4) Montreal Protocol

5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]

7) Stratospheric Water Vapor

8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]

9) Stadium Waves

10) ‘Coincidence!’

11) Pine aerosols

12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”

13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data” http://

14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere

15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]

16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation

17) AMOC ocean oscillation

18) “Global brightening” has stopped

19) “Ahistorical media”

20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]

21) Few El Ninos since 1999

22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”

23) “Not scientifically relevant”

24) The wrong type of El Ninos

25) Slower trade winds [debunked]

26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]

27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here

28) ENSO

29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific [paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]

31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”

32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important

33) NAO & PDO
34) Solar cycles
35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”

36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?

38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
[debunked] [Dr. Curry’s take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]

39) “Slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum”

40) The “pause” is “probably just barely statistically significant” with 95% confidence:The “slowdown” is “probably just barely statistically significant” and not “meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change”

41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:

The “recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate” because “anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 2010 has surprisingly warmed rather than cooled the global climate.”

[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they “surprisingly warm” the climate]
42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:

“it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic.” [Josh Willis]

43) Ocean Variability: [NYT article]

“After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the “pause”] is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress.” [Andrew Dessler]

44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:

” I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean’s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do.”-Andrew Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says “knows the data better than I do,” says in the very same NYT article that “it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself” – [Josh Willis]

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by innocentbystander. on Jul 10th, 2015 at 7:40pm
45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:

“Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the ‘pause’] that fits all of the data” [Andrew Dessler]

46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:

“If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle.” [Andrew Dessler]

47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both

“this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future.” [Andrew Dessler in an NYT article ]

48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:

It’s the Atlantic, not Pacific, and “the hiatus in the warming…should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke” [John Michael Wallace]

49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:

” If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.” [Carl Wunsch]

50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway: [Carl Wunsch in an NYT Article]

“The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up…How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?”

51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]

[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] [“pause” due to natural variability]

52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend [PLOS one Paper macia et al. discussed in European Commission news release here.]


Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Very_Vinnie on Jul 10th, 2015 at 7:40pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 9:59am:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 8:28pm:

Quote:
...  the effect will be offset by recent global warming* ...




* ... Indicating - and a confirmation - that factors increasing global average temperatures remain a CONSTANT

So much for "Professor" David Rose's claim of "no rise in global average temperatures in 20 years" - when each year has STILL broken the record held by the previous year, more often than NOT



that is complete garbage.  the FACT is that the last 18 years has had no statistically valid change in temperature.




This fits in well with the "tin-foil hat theory" that N.A.S.A., the B.O.M. and the M.E.T. have secretly joined forces with the many nations of the world that are represented by their top climate scientists on the I.P.C.C. - with the devious plot to jointly falsify average global temperatures spanning the last two decades   




Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Swagman on Jul 10th, 2015 at 9:05pm
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/07/10/11/32/snow-forecast-for-qld-as-cold-snap-hits



...hopefully it kills all the toads....... :D

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Very_Vinnie on Jul 11th, 2015 at 1:25pm

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 9:59am:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 8:28pm:

Quote:
...  the effect will be offset by recent global warming* ...




* ... Indicating - and a confirmation - that factors increasing global average temperatures remain a CONSTANT

So much for "Professor" David Rose's claim of "no rise in global average temperatures in 20 years" - when each year has STILL broken the record held by the previous year, more often than NOT



that is complete garbage.  the FACT is that the last 18 years has had no statistically valid change in temperature.




This fits in well with the "tin-foil hat theory" that N.A.S.A., the B.O.M. and the M.E.T. have secretly joined forces with the many nations of the world that are represented by their top climate scientists on the I.P.C.C. - with the devious plot to jointly falsify average global temperatures spanning the last two decades   



Can ANYONE explain how global average temperature records were broken - over a twenty year period that saw no rise in global average temperatures ?

(conspiracy theories, aside)




.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Swagman on Jul 11th, 2015 at 1:33pm
Natural climate fluctuations  :o

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Jul 11th, 2015 at 1:34pm
Well BOM had over 200 recordings that had overnight temperatures higher than the same day maximum.

But that was only after homogenisation. It wasn't in the raw data.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by bogarde73 on Jul 11th, 2015 at 1:49pm
The Little Ice Age of the 17th century (variously stated as being 1590 -, 1620-, 1640-1715) is thought to have contributed to a reduction of the world's population by a third.

They didn't all die of cold. But the failure of many harvests contributed to unrest and brutal wars around the world, along with religious disputes & plague. The Thirty Years War in Germany, revolutions & civil war in Britain, France, the Ottoman Empire and China were among the worst.

Strangely it seems there was a coincidence with the invention of Galileo's telescope and the observation of sunspots. Up to 1640 these were regularly observed and then suddenly ceased to appear until, I think, around 1680.

Any major or significant climatic change would be likely to cause ruptures in society. Wasn't there an upsurge in internal strife in England during a hot period in the early middle ages.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Swagman on Jul 11th, 2015 at 9:10pm

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 1:49pm:
Strangely it seems there was a coincidence with the invention of Galileo's telescope and the observation of sunspots. Up to 1640 these were regularly observed and then suddenly ceased to appear until, I think, around 1680


The Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715




Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by The Mechanic on Jul 11th, 2015 at 9:34pm
I know it seems like the coldest year on record..

but really gentlemen..

its been the hottest year ever because of us scientist are sure the heat is hidden under the sea because heat sinks and not rises as popular theory might say...

yep..

global warming is alive and well.. :)

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by The_Barnacle on Jul 12th, 2015 at 10:56am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 10:02am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:17pm:
All things being equal, if you increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere you will produce warming. That is pretty basic science.   


Except it isnt true or that simple.  CO2 concentration shave been increasing in the last 20 years and yet temperature has not.  That conclusively disproves the theory of a linear simplistic relationship.


No it doesn't. The reason there hasn't been a simplistic linear increase in temperature is that there are a lot of other variables. But the TREND is that temperatures are increasing.

You go on about "statistically insignificant" increases but you ignore the fact that 18 years is statistically insignificant when you are talking about global climate change over many decades. You also conveniently ignore the cherry picking of 1998 as the aledged start of the pause which was a year of unprecedented el nino inspired warming.

And then you have the cheek to join the tin foil hat brigade and claim there is some massive conspiracy theory amongst all the world scientists.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Rider on Jul 12th, 2015 at 11:16am

lee wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 1:34pm:
Well BOM had over 200 recordings that had overnight temperatures higher than the same day maximum.

But that was only after homogenisation. It wasn't in the raw data.


So Raw data + homogenization (selective sampling) = New Records.

Got it. No grounds for suspicion there.......No conspiracy theory required.

Simple fraud to maintain and / or enhance their tax payer funded budgets.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by The_Barnacle on Jul 12th, 2015 at 11:59am

lee wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 1:34pm:
Well BOM had over 200 recordings that had overnight temperatures higher than the same day maximum.

But that was only after homogenisation. It wasn't in the raw data.


That's quote an extraordinary claim Lee.
Do you have even the slightest evidence to back that up?
Otherwise I'm calling BS

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Very_Vinnie on Jul 12th, 2015 at 12:13pm

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 10:56am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 10:02am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:17pm:
All things being equal, if you increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere you will produce warming. That is pretty basic science.   


Except it isnt true or that simple.  CO2 concentrations have been increasing in the last 20 years and yet temperature has not.  That conclusively disproves the theory of a linear simplistic relationship.


No it doesn't. The reason there hasn't been a simplistic linear increase in temperature is that there are a lot of other variables. But the TREND is that temperatures are increasing.

You go on about "statistically insignificant" increases but you ignore the fact that 18 years is statistically insignificant when you are talking about global climate change over many decades. You also conveniently ignore the cherry picking of 1998 as the aledged start of the pause which was a year of unprecedented el nino inspired warming.

And then you have the cheek to join the tin foil hat brigade and claim there is some massive conspiracy theory amongst all the world scientists.





January 22, 2015, 10:28 PST 

The 10 warmest years: Not exactly forever ago

Last week NASA and NOAA announced that 2014 topped the list of hottest years ever recorded.
What’s worse, the ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred since 1998.

http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2224






Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by gizmo_2655 on Jul 12th, 2015 at 1:43pm

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 12:13pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 10:56am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 10:02am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:17pm:
All things being equal, if you increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere you will produce warming. That is pretty basic science.   


Except it isnt true or that simple.  CO2 concentrations have been increasing in the last 20 years and yet temperature has not.  That conclusively disproves the theory of a linear simplistic relationship.


No it doesn't. The reason there hasn't been a simplistic linear increase in temperature is that there are a lot of other variables. But the TREND is that temperatures are increasing.

You go on about "statistically insignificant" increases but you ignore the fact that 18 years is statistically insignificant when you are talking about global climate change over many decades. You also conveniently ignore the cherry picking of 1998 as the aledged start of the pause which was a year of unprecedented el nino inspired warming.

And then you have the cheek to join the tin foil hat brigade and claim there is some massive conspiracy theory amongst all the world scientists.





January 22, 2015, 10:28 PST 

The 10 warmest years: Not exactly forever ago

Last week NASA and NOAA announced that 2014 topped the list of hottest years ever recorded.
What’s worse, the ten warmest years [highlight]ever recorded have all occurred since 1998.[/highlight]

http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2224


And???

Even if the warming is natural (which it most likely is), it would make perfect sense that the temperatures would be generally cooler (allowing for natural 'peaks and valleys') the further back towards the LIA you check.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Ajax on Jul 12th, 2015 at 2:05pm
The Earth has been getting warmer BUT its not because man has been emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.

AGW = mythology

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Sir Bobby on Jul 12th, 2015 at 2:54pm

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by The_Barnacle on Jul 13th, 2015 at 11:00am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 1:43pm:
Even if the warming is natural (which it most likely is),



Ajax wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 2:05pm:
The Earth has been getting warmer BUT its not because man has been emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.


Well at least we are making progress. The skeptics are grudgingly admitting that the earth is warming.
Now all that is required is a basic chemistry lesson on how CO2 is a greenhouse gas and how 7 billion people burning fossil fuels will inevitably change the make up of the atmosphere.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Swagman on Jul 13th, 2015 at 11:35am

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 11:00am:
The skeptics are grudgingly admitting that the earth is warming.


......off and on for 11,700 years or so give or take a few years





Title: You better rush there before ice disappears
Post by Unforgiven on Jul 13th, 2015 at 12:58pm
Geothermal heating under Antarctic ice sheet adds to the problems of ice melt.

http://www.newsquench.com/2015/07/scientists-find-evidence-of-geothermal-heating-under-antarctic-ice-sheet/


Quote:
Scientists find evidence of geothermal heating under Antarctic ice sheet

     By Sam Catherman, NewsQuench | July 12, 2015

Scientists find evidence of geothermal heating under Antarctic ice sheet
Recent research has revealed evidence of geothermal heating from blow the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which could be bad news amidst concerns of rising sea levels.

                 
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been under recent fire from rising global temperatures, shedding much of its mass into the Southern Ocean in the form of liquid fresh water. According to a report from UPI, that’s not all the ice sheet needs to be concerned about – scientists have just detected a surprising amount of heat being applied to the ice from geothermal activity below.

Using a deep probe, scientists took measurements of the flow of heat in the sediments underneath the ice sheet. They were shocked to find that the amount of heat flowing upward from the crust was much higher than they expected.

Despite the heat given off by the ground below the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the recent massive losses suffered by the top of sheet have little to do with geothermal activity.

According to professor Andrew Fisher of the University of Santa Cruz, the geothermal heat flux is nothing that the ice sheet hasn’t been dealing with since it formed.

Nonetheless, it could help explain why the ice sheet is so unstable on the top of the ground. Excess heat from sources like climate change can push the ice sheet around, but it seems to have been sitting on unstable ground the whole time.

The geothermal heat flux clocked in at 285 milliwatts per square meter, which is equivalent to the heat emitted by a single Christmas light each square meter.

The finding makes performing models on ice melt to predict how it might affect sea level rise all the more difficult, but it is an important factor to consider when assessing the risks posed by rising sea levels.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by gizmo_2655 on Jul 13th, 2015 at 1:01pm

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 11:00am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 1:43pm:
Even if the warming is natural (which it most likely is),



Ajax wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 2:05pm:
The Earth has been getting warmer BUT its not because man has been emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.


Well at least we are making progress. The skeptics are grudgingly admitting that the earth is warming.
Now all that is required is a basic chemistry lesson on how CO2 is a greenhouse gas and how 7 billion people burning fossil fuels will inevitably change the make up of the atmosphere.


Sceptics have never denied that the Earth has warmed/is warming since the end of the Little Ice Age (that is, after all WHY the Little Ice Age ended). It's the CAUSE of the warming that us sceptics dispute.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by red baron on Jul 13th, 2015 at 2:29pm
Very interesting post Swagman. Without the sun's solar flares, we are for the high jump.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 13th, 2015 at 3:01pm

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 1:25pm:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 9:59am:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 8:28pm:

Quote:
...  the effect will be offset by recent global warming* ...




* ... Indicating - and a confirmation - that factors increasing global average temperatures remain a CONSTANT

So much for "Professor" David Rose's claim of "no rise in global average temperatures in 20 years" - when each year has STILL broken the record held by the previous year, more often than NOT



that is complete garbage.  the FACT is that the last 18 years has had no statistically valid change in temperature.




This fits in well with the "tin-foil hat theory" that N.A.S.A., the B.O.M. and the M.E.T. have secretly joined forces with the many nations of the world that are represented by their top climate scientists on the I.P.C.C. - with the devious plot to jointly falsify average global temperatures spanning the last two decades   



Can ANYONE explain how global average temperature records were broken - over a twenty year period that saw no rise in global average temperatures ?

(conspiracy theories, aside)




.



simple.  THEY WERENT.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 13th, 2015 at 3:05pm

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 10:56am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 10:02am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:17pm:
All things being equal, if you increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere you will produce warming. That is pretty basic science.   


Except it isnt true or that simple.  CO2 concentration shave been increasing in the last 20 years and yet temperature has not.  That conclusively disproves the theory of a linear simplistic relationship.


No it doesn't. The reason there hasn't been a simplistic linear increase in temperature is that there are a lot of other variables. But the TREND is that temperatures are increasing.

You go on about "statistically insignificant" increases but you ignore the fact that 18 years is statistically insignificant when you are talking about global climate change over many decades. You also conveniently ignore the cherry picking of 1998 as the aledged start of the pause which was a year of unprecedented el nino inspired warming.

And then you have the cheek to join the tin foil hat brigade and claim there is some massive conspiracy theory amongst all the world scientists.



do you realise that in a sentence denying my post you actually confirmed that there is no linear relationship?  You complain about cherry-picking when it is no such thing.  It doesnt matter when you choose the start date. the last 18 years show no increase in temperatures.  The fact you are unwilling or unable to accept that indicates the depth of your religious mania regarding climate change.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 13th, 2015 at 3:09pm

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 12:13pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 10:56am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 10:02am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:17pm:
All things being equal, if you increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere you will produce warming. That is pretty basic science.   


Except it isnt true or that simple.  CO2 concentrations have been increasing in the last 20 years and yet temperature has not.  That conclusively disproves the theory of a linear simplistic relationship.


No it doesn't. The reason there hasn't been a simplistic linear increase in temperature is that there are a lot of other variables. But the TREND is that temperatures are increasing.

You go on about "statistically insignificant" increases but you ignore the fact that 18 years is statistically insignificant when you are talking about global climate change over many decades. You also conveniently ignore the cherry picking of 1998 as the aledged start of the pause which was a year of unprecedented el nino inspired warming.

And then you have the cheek to join the tin foil hat brigade and claim there is some massive conspiracy theory amongst all the world scientists.





January 22, 2015, 10:28 PST 

The 10 warmest years: Not exactly forever ago

Last week NASA and NOAA announced that 2014 topped the list of hottest years ever recorded.
What’s worse, the ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred since 1998.

http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2224



quite the lie actually.  2014 had an increase of 0.05 degrees with an error margin of +/-0.1 degrees.    this is why it is called 'statistically insignificant'.  And your use of 'average is what allows you to lie with such impunity. the temperatures could remain constant for the next 50 years and still be 'higher than the 20th average'.  get the point yet?  no? well try this one. 'last year showed no change from the average temperature of the last 20 years'.  it is just as accurate and yet the message is different?  Could it be that you have no idea what a running average is?  Could it explain why a car can have an average speed of 100km/hr over a journey and be stationary right now?

idiot.
simpleton.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 13th, 2015 at 3:10pm

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 11:00am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 1:43pm:
Even if the warming is natural (which it most likely is),



Ajax wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 2:05pm:
The Earth has been getting warmer BUT its not because man has been emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.


Well at least we are making progress. The skeptics are grudgingly admitting that the earth is warming.
Now all that is required is a basic chemistry lesson on how CO2 is a greenhouse gas and how 7 billion people burning fossil fuels will inevitably change the make up of the atmosphere.


then you can answer why in 20 years the CO2 concentration has increased but temperatures have not.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by red baron on Jul 13th, 2015 at 3:42pm
Well everyone can relax because humans will eat  burn and devour everything eventually, then we will become extinct then in a million or so years the earth will heal itself.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Jul 13th, 2015 at 4:04pm

red baron wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 3:42pm:
Well everyone can relax because humans will eat  burn and devour everything eventually, then we will become extinct then in a million or so years the earth will heal itself.


Future Palaentologist will find Red Baron's remains embedded in a piece of rock beside the remains of its droopy flagpole and then announce I found the cause of the disintegration of 3rd millennium society.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 13th, 2015 at 5:49pm

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 4:04pm:

red baron wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 3:42pm:
Well everyone can relax because humans will eat  burn and devour everything eventually, then we will become extinct then in a million or so years the earth will heal itself.


Future Palaentologist will find Red Baron's remains embedded in a piece of rock beside the remains of its droopy flagpole and then announce I found the cause of the disintegration of 3rd millennium society.


So I see you cannot refute my statement about Co2 not being a driver of warming.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Baronvonrort on Jul 13th, 2015 at 6:01pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 1:51pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:37am:
And India was definitely having one of the worst heatwaves with 50 degrees temperatures and 1000 people dying !!!

If it was a mini ice age then you would expect all temperatures across the globe to be dropping with none of these heatwaves !!


adelaide is having its coldest winter in a long time and this weekend expected to go well below zero.  record cold.

but that doesnt count right? because it is just 'weather' while the heatwaves are difference?


btw do your maths. 1000 indians dying of heat is the same ratio as one dying from heat in adelaide - which happens every 45 degree day.


If you look at the statistics from deaths due to cold or hot weather it's clear cold weather kills far more than hot weather.

Geologists will tell you the earth has always cycled between Icehouse and Greenhouse,perhaps that explains why they find intact fish fossils on the side of hills and mountains.





Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Baronvonrort on Jul 13th, 2015 at 6:03pm


Glitch caused dp

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 6:48pm

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 6:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 1:51pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:37am:
And India was definitely having one of the worst heatwaves with 50 degrees temperatures and 1000 people dying !!!

If it was a mini ice age then you would expect all temperatures across the globe to be dropping with none of these heatwaves !!


adelaide is having its coldest winter in a long time and this weekend expected to go well below zero.  record cold.

but that doesnt count right? because it is just 'weather' while the heatwaves are difference?


btw do your maths. 1000 indians dying of heat is the same ratio as one dying from heat in adelaide - which happens every 45 degree day.


If you look at the statistics from deaths due to cold or hot weather it's clear cold weather kills far more than hot weather.

Geologists will tell you the earth has always cycled between Icehouse and Greenhouse,perhaps that explains why they find intact fish fossils on the side of hills and mountains.


dont confuse them with facts and logic.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Greens_Win on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 6:56pm

Orbit eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit determined climatic patterns on Earth through orbital forcing. The next ice age possible, when all three are in 'the zone' when an ice age is possible is in 60,000 years.


Nothing happening in this thread.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 7:34pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 3:10pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 11:00am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 1:43pm:
Even if the warming is natural (which it most likely is),



Ajax wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 2:05pm:
The Earth has been getting warmer BUT its not because man has been emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.


Well at least we are making progress. The skeptics are grudgingly admitting that the earth is warming.
Now all that is required is a basic chemistry lesson on how CO2 is a greenhouse gas and how 7 billion people burning fossil fuels will inevitably change the make up of the atmosphere.


then you can answer why in 20 years the CO2 concentration has increased but temperatures have not.

Temperature is an indicator of heat content within a system boundary: when you talk about temperature you must also talk about it's system boundary and you do not BECAUSE YOU ARE A PROPAGANDA MERCHANT!

tHANKS FOR PLAYING- WE ALL TUNE IN TO WATCH ME OWN YOU LONG TIME AND WE ALL KNOW YOU LOVE ME LIKE A DIRTY _______  :D :D

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 7:35pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 3:05pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 10:56am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 10:02am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:17pm:
All things being equal, if you increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere you will produce warming. That is pretty basic science.   


Except it isnt true or that simple.  CO2 concentration shave been increasing in the last 20 years and yet temperature has not.  That conclusively disproves the theory of a linear simplistic relationship.


No it doesn't. The reason there hasn't been a simplistic linear increase in temperature is that there are a lot of other variables. But the TREND is that temperatures are increasing.

You go on about "statistically insignificant" increases but you ignore the fact that 18 years is statistically insignificant when you are talking about global climate change over many decades. You also conveniently ignore the cherry picking of 1998 as the aledged start of the pause which was a year of unprecedented el nino inspired warming.

And then you have the cheek to join the tin foil hat brigade and claim there is some massive conspiracy theory amongst all the world scientists.



do you realise that in a sentence denying my post you actually confirmed that there is no linear relationship?  You complain about cherry-picking when it is no such thing.  It doesnt matter when you choose the start date. the last 18 years show no increase in temperatures.  The fact you are unwilling or unable to accept that indicates the depth of your religious mania regarding climate change.

You are factually incorrect!

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 7:36pm

red baron wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 2:29pm:
Very interesting post Swagman. Without the sun's solar flares, we are for the high jump.

Please explain!  :o :o

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 7:40pm

Swagman wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 11:35am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 13th, 2015 at 11:00am:
The skeptics are grudgingly admitting that the earth is warming.


......off and on for 11,700 years or so give or take a few years

Swagman believes the earth is still operating with sinusoidal behaviour, apparently: nothing to see here folks just keep purchasing and burning fuel and living like the witches wand of hollywood tells you to  :o :o :o :o  ::) -------> Good sheeple, uncle will be so happy and give me a present!

:) :)

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 7:41pm

Ajax wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 2:05pm:
The Earth has been getting warmer BUT its not because man has been emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.

AGW = mythology

Ajax misses the family that don't bother talking to him anymore  :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 7:42pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 1:43pm:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 12:13pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 10:56am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 10:02am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:17pm:
All things being equal, if you increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere you will produce warming. That is pretty basic science.   


Except it isnt true or that simple.  CO2 concentrations have been increasing in the last 20 years and yet temperature has not.  That conclusively disproves the theory of a linear simplistic relationship.


No it doesn't. The reason there hasn't been a simplistic linear increase in temperature is that there are a lot of other variables. But the TREND is that temperatures are increasing.

You go on about "statistically insignificant" increases but you ignore the fact that 18 years is statistically insignificant when you are talking about global climate change over many decades. You also conveniently ignore the cherry picking of 1998 as the aledged start of the pause which was a year of unprecedented el nino inspired warming.

And then you have the cheek to join the tin foil hat brigade and claim there is some massive conspiracy theory amongst all the world scientists.





January 22, 2015, 10:28 PST 

The 10 warmest years: Not exactly forever ago

Last week NASA and NOAA announced that 2014 topped the list of hottest years ever recorded.
What’s worse, the ten warmest years [highlight]ever recorded have all occurred since 1998.[/highlight]

http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2224


And???

Even if the warming is natural (which it most likely is), it would make perfect sense that the temperatures would be generally cooler (allowing for natural 'peaks and valleys') the further back towards the LIA you check.

Quantitative argument now is it  :D :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 7:45pm

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 12th, 2015 at 10:56am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 10:02am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 9th, 2015 at 10:17pm:
All things being equal, if you increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere you will produce warming. That is pretty basic science.   


Except it isnt true or that simple.  CO2 concentration shave been increasing in the last 20 years and yet temperature has not.  That conclusively disproves the theory of a linear simplistic relationship.


No it doesn't. The reason there hasn't been a simplistic linear increase in temperature is that there are a lot of other variables. But the TREND is that temperatures are increasing.

You go on about "statistically insignificant" increases but you ignore the fact that 18 years is statistically insignificant when you are talking about global climate change over many decades. You also conveniently ignore the cherry picking of 1998 as the aledged start of the pause which was a year of unprecedented el nino inspired warming.

And then you have the cheek to join the tin foil hat brigade and claim there is some massive conspiracy theory amongst all the world scientists.

The trick is, "..temperature of what?"

Temperature is an indicator of the heat content within a system boundary.... any talk of temperature needs to include the system boundary it is talking about otherwise it means nothing!

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 7:48pm

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jul 11th, 2015 at 9:34pm:
I know it seems like the coldest year on record..

but really gentlemen..

its been the hottest year ever because of us scientist are sure the heat is hidden under the sea because heat sinks and not rises as popular theory might say...

yep..

global warming is alive and well.. :)

lol, you know nothing about how mass interacts with energy!

Oh, yeh, vote for copper internet and pretend to your kids you know how the world works: what a joke you lib voters are  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Swagman on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 8:12pm

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by John_Taverner on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 8:33pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 10:02am:
Except it isnt true or that simple.  CO2 concentration shave been increasing in the last 20 years and yet temperature has not.  That conclusively disproves the theory of a linear simplistic relationship.


What theory of a linear simplistic relationship are you talking about?  OK, you claim you can conclusively disprove (?)  your own strawman, but you demonstrate quite clearly that you have absolutely no concept of the underlying science. 

For one thing, it's a logarithmic relationship, and the factor that varies with CO2 concentration is called radiative forcing.


ΔF=5.35ln(C/Co)    in Wm-2

That's what they teach at High School. You on the other hand think that you're arguing against a linear relationship. Then you add the term "simplistic".

The only simplistic thing here is your argument.

Major fail.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by innocentbystander. on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 9:34pm

____ wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 6:56pm:
Orbit eccentricity, axial tilt, 




Yeah but enough about you, what about the Earth?

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:58am

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 8:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 10:02am:
Except it isnt true or that simple.  CO2 concentration shave been increasing in the last 20 years and yet temperature has not.  That conclusively disproves the theory of a linear simplistic relationship.


What theory of a linear simplistic relationship are you talking about?  OK, you claim you can conclusively disprove (?)  your own strawman, but you demonstrate quite clearly that you have absolutely no concept of the underlying science. 

For one thing, it's a logarithmic relationship, and the factor that varies with CO2 concentration is called radiative forcing.


ΔF=5.35ln(C/Co)    in Wm-2

That's what they teach at High School. You on the other hand think that you're arguing against a linear relationship. Then you add the term "simplistic".

The only simplistic thing here is your argument.

Major fail.



they teach the relationship between CO2 and temperature in high school???  And the problem remains that Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all.  Linear or logarithmic, the relationship is clearly nowhere near that simple.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 5:07pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:58am:

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 8:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2015 at 10:02am:
Except it isnt true or that simple.  CO2 concentration shave been increasing in the last 20 years and yet temperature has not.  That conclusively disproves the theory of a linear simplistic relationship.


What theory of a linear simplistic relationship are you talking about?  OK, you claim you can conclusively disprove (?)  your own strawman, but you demonstrate quite clearly that you have absolutely no concept of the underlying science. 

For one thing, it's a logarithmic relationship, and the factor that varies with CO2 concentration is called radiative forcing.


ΔF=5.35ln(C/Co)    in Wm-2

That's what they teach at High School. You on the other hand think that you're arguing against a linear relationship. Then you add the term "simplistic".

The only simplistic thing here is your argument.

Major fail.



they teach the relationship between CO2 and temperature in high school???  And the problem remains that Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all.  Linear or logarithmic, the relationship is clearly nowhere near that simple.

Directly proportional can't mean linear if the system is complex by definition!

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 5:09pm

Swagman wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 8:12pm:

Jevons paradox makes people very rich doesn' it  :D :D :D :D :D... that's what all those wars are for!

::)

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by The_Barnacle on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 9:48pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:58am:
  And the problem remains that Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all.  Linear or logarithmic, the relationship is clearly nowhere near that simple.


On that we agree. In a system as complex as the earth it is never going to be a linear relationship. And that is why the so called "warming pause" is such a red herring.

What we would expect to see is lots of "noise" in the short term but an unmistakable trend of warming over the long term.

And that is exactly what we see.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by John_Taverner on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:01am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:58am:
they teach the relationship between CO2 and temperature in high school???  And the problem remains that Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all.  Linear or logarithmic, the relationship is clearly nowhere near that simple.


Yes they do, and as usual you have missed the point completely. You are arguing against a simplistic linear relationship.

You don't even know what you're arguing about. You fail to grasp even High School Physics.

You don't have a clue. Why do you argue about something of which you don't even know the basics?

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Very_Vinnie on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:29am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:58am:
... Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all. 




No matter HOW many times you repeat David Rose's "tabloid tales"

- you're STILL repeating a pile of dog sh1t















Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:34am

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:29am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:58am:
... Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all. 




No matter HOW many times you repeat David Rose's "tabloid tales"

- you're STILL repeating a pile of dog sh1t








find ANY graph of surface temperatures from any reliable source and you will find the same thing.  try it and look.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:35am

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:01am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:58am:
they teach the relationship between CO2 and temperature in high school???  And the problem remains that Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all.  Linear or logarithmic, the relationship is clearly nowhere near that simple.


Yes they do, and as usual you have missed the point completely. You are arguing against a simplistic linear relationship.

You don't even know what you're arguing about. You fail to grasp even High School Physics.

You don't have a clue. Why do you argue about something of which you don't even know the basics?



can the bluster. CO2 is rising and temperature is NOT.  clearly the relationship is not what has been predicted because there are far too many factors at play here.  And I know of no one that is taught about CO2/temperature at school

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Swagman on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:43am
Here Vinnie, use this to heat your self up a nice Latte to sip on with your Greenie comrades...




......it might take a while for the pot to boil though  ;D

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Very_Vinnie on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:53am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:34am:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:29am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:58am:
... Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all. 




No matter HOW many times you repeat David Rose's "tabloid tales"

- you're STILL repeating a pile of dog sh1t


find ANY graph of surface temperatures from any reliable source and you will find the same thing.  try it and look.



Try NASA - or our own BOM
They'll let you see that global average temperatures have broken old and set new record highs at least half a dozen times over your "pause" period

2014 was the warmest year since records began - despite your claim of "no increase since 1996"

2015 is on track to surpass 2014 - despite your claim of "no increase since 1996"





Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Jul 24th, 2015 at 11:22am
As the IPCC says the 'hiatus' is a break in the 1979-98 trend. The trend from 1998 on is less than before. Not what one would expect if the ever increasing CO2 levels were the control knob. Unless of course CO2 is approaching saturation, which would kill AGW theory.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 12:29pm

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:53am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:34am:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:29am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:58am:
... Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all. 




No matter HOW many times you repeat David Rose's "tabloid tales"

- you're STILL repeating a pile of dog sh1t


find ANY graph of surface temperatures from any reliable source and you will find the same thing.  try it and look.



Try NASA - or our own BOM
They'll let you see that global average temperatures have broken old and set new record highs at least half a dozen times over your "pause" period

2014 was the warmest year since records began - despite your claim of "no increase since 1996"

2015 is on track to surpass 2014 - despite your claim of "no increase since 1996"



SHOW THE GRAPH BOOFHEAD

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by oHTheStenchofCopperInternet on Jul 24th, 2015 at 12:53pm

lee wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 11:22am:
As the IPCC says the 'hiatus' is a break in the 1979-98 trend. The trend from 1998 on is less than before. Not what one would expect if the ever increasing CO2 levels were the control knob. Unless of course CO2 is approaching saturation, which would kill AGW theory.

ah, so no pause  :D :D

::)

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Jul 24th, 2015 at 1:41pm
The 'hiatus' is also the 'pause'. It is the change in the trend.

Of course you could try to explain why early 20th century warming shows a similar rate of change to late 20th century warming.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by John_Taverner on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:35pm
There is no need to explain anything of the kind. It is established beyond any reasonable doubt that increasing CO2 leads to an increase in Radiative Forcing due to CO2.  That has been established time and time again using emission spectra and a progressive decrease in LWIR radation over time at the peak caused by CO2.

That relationship is well established, and it is logarithmic.

The Law of Conservation of Energy leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the extra heat must be doing something - if not conversion to kinetic energy (higher winds etc), then an increase in temperature.

That "something" has been reasonably well defined.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by John_Taverner on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:39pm

lee wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 11:22am:
As the IPCC says the 'hiatus' is a break in the 1979-98 trend. The trend from 1998 on is less than before. Not what one would expect if the ever increasing CO2 levels were the control knob. Unless of course CO2 is approaching saturation, which would kill AGW theory.


Go on then. I'm dying to hear you repeat that hackneyed little gem.

Start by telling everybody where in the atmospheric column all the action is?

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:40pm

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:35pm:
There is no need to explain anything of the kind.



Link please.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:42pm
What is the level of CO2 saturation? Please tell us John.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:51pm

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:35pm:
There is no need to explain anything of the kind. It is established beyond any reasonable doubt that increasing CO2 leads to an increase in Radiative Forcing due to CO2.  That has been established time and time again using emission spectra and a progressive decrease in LWIR radation over time at the peak caused by CO2.

That relationship is well established, and it is logarithmic.

The Law of Conservation of Energy leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the extra heat must be doing something - if not conversion to kinetic energy (higher winds etc), then an increase in temperature.

That "something" has been reasonably well defined.



you are missing the point. CO2 increases and temperature has NOT increased.  Clearly and obviously the drivers of temperature are a lot more complex and substantial than mere CO2 concentrations. That is the problem you face - your theory of a relationship has failed. IF there is a relationship then the limits to its application have been exceeded.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Very_Vinnie on Jul 24th, 2015 at 5:30pm

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:53am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:34am:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:29am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:58am:
... Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all. 




No matter HOW many times you repeat David Rose's "tabloid tales"

- you're STILL repeating a pile of dog sh1t


find ANY graph of surface temperatures from any reliable source and you will find the same thing.  try it and look.



Try NASA - or our own BOM
They'll let you see that global average temperatures have broken old and set new record highs at least half a dozen times over your "pause" period

2014 was the warmest year since records began - despite your claim of "no increase since 1996"

2015 is on track to surpass 2014 - despite your claim of "no increase since 1996"






http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php










Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 5:44pm

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 5:30pm:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:53am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:34am:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:29am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:58am:
... Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all. 




No matter HOW many times you repeat David Rose's "tabloid tales"

- you're STILL repeating a pile of dog sh1t


find ANY graph of surface temperatures from any reliable source and you will find the same thing.  try it and look.



Try NASA - or our own BOM
They'll let you see that global average temperatures have broken old and set new record highs at least half a dozen times over your "pause" period

2014 was the warmest year since records began - despite your claim of "no increase since 1996"

2015 is on track to surpass 2014 - despite your claim of "no increase since 1996"






http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php



nicely biased of you to show a graph that ends 5 years ago.  But even then take a look at the faint line which is actual annual averages and you will see they all oscillate arund a HORIZONTAL LINE meaning no increase.  and if you get the current version of this grpah with up to 2015 you will see the 5 year average line has also plateaued.

your graph made MY point for me. I guess you cannot read graphs. No surprise.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Sir lastnail on Jul 24th, 2015 at 5:58pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:51pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:35pm:
There is no need to explain anything of the kind. It is established beyond any reasonable doubt that increasing CO2 leads to an increase in Radiative Forcing due to CO2.  That has been established time and time again using emission spectra and a progressive decrease in LWIR radation over time at the peak caused by CO2.

That relationship is well established, and it is logarithmic.

The Law of Conservation of Energy leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the extra heat must be doing something - if not conversion to kinetic energy (higher winds etc), then an increase in temperature.

That "something" has been reasonably well defined.



you are missing the point. CO2 increases and temperature has NOT increased.  Clearly and obviously the drivers of temperature are a lot more complex and substantial than mere CO2 concentrations. That is the problem you face - your theory of a relationship has failed. IF there is a relationship then the limits to its application have been exceeded.


so what is the relationship then ? Maybe God controls it and only he knows :D

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 6:12pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 5:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:51pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:35pm:
There is no need to explain anything of the kind. It is established beyond any reasonable doubt that increasing CO2 leads to an increase in Radiative Forcing due to CO2.  That has been established time and time again using emission spectra and a progressive decrease in LWIR radation over time at the peak caused by CO2.

That relationship is well established, and it is logarithmic.

The Law of Conservation of Energy leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the extra heat must be doing something - if not conversion to kinetic energy (higher winds etc), then an increase in temperature.

That "something" has been reasonably well defined.



you are missing the point. CO2 increases and temperature has NOT increased.  Clearly and obviously the drivers of temperature are a lot more complex and substantial than mere CO2 concentrations. That is the problem you face - your theory of a relationship has failed. IF there is a relationship then the limits to its application have been exceeded.


so what is the relationship then ? Maybe God controls it and only he knows :D


it is not a relationship at all.  the components of temperature are incredibly complex and not well known. In fact it is not even poorly known but rather barely known.  there are dozens of inputs to temperature, some of which we are still unaware and others which we do not understand.

The relationship taverer is referring to is a closed system experimental setup where only one variable changes - CO2 concentration. This gives us a relationship that is perfectly accurate and utterly unhelpful in a system with 50 other variables in play.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Very_Vinnie on Jul 24th, 2015 at 6:23pm

Swagman wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 3:57pm:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/586404/Britain-freezing-winters-slump-solar-activity


Quote:
Britain faces FREEZING winters as slump in solar activity threatens 'little Ice Age'

BRITAIN could face colder than average winters with a plunge in solar activity threatening a new "little ice age" in the next few decades.

Climate experts warn the amount of light and warmth released by the sun is nosediving to levels "not seen for centuries".

They fear a repeat of the so-called 'Maunder Minimum' which triggered Arctic winter whiteouts and led to the River Thames freezing 300 years ago.

The Met Office-led study warns although the effect will be offset by recent global warming, Britain faces years of unusually cold winters.

A spokesman said: "A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United States but wouldn't halt global warming.

"Return of 'grand solar minimum' could affect European and eastern US winters."

Long episodes of low solar activity were seen during the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715 and the 'Dalton Minimum' from 1790 to 1830.

Both periods coincided with colder-than-normal global temperatures earning the title from scientists of "Little Ice Age."

The latest study, published in Nature Communications, found reduced solar activity will lead to an overall cooling of the Earth of 0.1C.

A much bigger cooling effect is expected for Britain, northern Europe and North America where thermometers could drop by 0.8C.

Amanda Maycock, of the University of Cambridge and National Centre for Atmospheric Science, said: "It's important that we consider the potential impact of changes in UV output when looking at future climate."








Anyone caught up in the media frenzy and hype over a 'little ice age' might like to read this report
- top to bottom -
for a bit of a reality check

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4277443.htm








Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Jul 24th, 2015 at 6:39pm
'And while that was last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ as the Royal Astronomical Society told us in an ill-worded media release ...'

Not very scientific of them was it?

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Very_Vinnie on Jul 24th, 2015 at 6:39pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 5:44pm:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 5:30pm:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:53am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:34am:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:29am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:58am:
... Co2 has increased and temperature has not a all. 




No matter HOW many times you repeat David Rose's "tabloid tales"

- you're STILL repeating a pile of dog sh1t


find ANY graph of surface temperatures from any reliable source and you will find the same thing.  try it and look.



Try NASA - or our own BOM
They'll let you see that global average temperatures have broken old and set new record highs at least half a dozen times over your "pause" period

2014 was the warmest year since records began - despite your claim of "no increase since 1996"

2015 is on track to surpass 2014 - despite your claim of "no increase since 1996"






http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php



take a look at the faint line which is actual annual averages and you will see they all oscillate arund a HORIZONTAL LINE from 1996 till the end of the graph meaning no increase ... over the last 20 years of "pause"  




NO, it DOESN'T





Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by John_Taverner on Jul 24th, 2015 at 6:41pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:51pm:
you are missing the point. CO2 increases and temperature has NOT increased.  Clearly and obviously the drivers of temperature are a lot more complex and substantial than mere CO2 concentrations. That is the problem you face - your theory of a relationship has failed. IF there is a relationship then the limits to its application have been exceeded.


Do you understand the difference between heat and temperature?

The research shows that the heat escaping to space has decreased. 

Again you fail to understand what you are arguing about. Nobody is saying that the drivers of global temperature are anything but complex, but well defined.

Good grief, the last IPCC report went into volumes about it.

What's wrong with you Longfellow? You keep coming up with simplistic strawmen. 

Can you really be that ignorant about what you are supposed to be arguing about? 

Rule 1 of debating- understand what you are arguing against. If you don't, you will make a fool of yourself.

You have made a fool of yourself twice so far.


lee wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 3:42pm:
What is the level of CO2 saturation? Please tell us John.


Ask Longbottom, (the blind leading the blind) or at least try to understand the questions you are asking.,

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Very_Vinnie on Jul 24th, 2015 at 6:49pm

lee wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 6:39pm:
'And while that was last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ as the Royal Astronomical Society told us in an ill-worded media release ...'

Not very scientific of them was it ?



... and not very scientific of the British MET Office to use the word "pause" - in describing a slight slowing in the rate of increase in annual global average temperatures

... though the MET did correct themselves in a clarification - via a media release, within 24 hours - a release the climate change denial lobby conveniently ignore, still quoting a "pause"


 

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Jul 24th, 2015 at 7:11pm

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 6:49pm:
.... and not very scientific of the British MET Office to use the word "pause"



Or the IPCC to use hiatus.

Or over 50 papers explaining the reason for the 'pause; or the 'hiatus'.  You would think that if it wasn't there they would know better.

Must be the class of climate scientists they are employing these days.


John_Taverner wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 6:41pm:
Ask Longbottom, (the blind leading the blind) or at least try to understand the questions you are asking.,
Posted by: Very_Vinnie  Mark & Quote      



Seeing as you don't know.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by innocentbystander. on Jul 24th, 2015 at 8:13pm

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:29am:
No matter HOW many times you repeat David Rose's "tabloid tales"



Have you any idea how pitiful and ridiculous the David Rose argument is? ... obviously not   ;D

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 8:18pm

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 6:23pm:

Swagman wrote on Jul 8th, 2015 at 3:57pm:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/586404/Britain-freezing-winters-slump-solar-activity


Quote:
Britain faces FREEZING winters as slump in solar activity threatens 'little Ice Age'

BRITAIN could face colder than average winters with a plunge in solar activity threatening a new "little ice age" in the next few decades.

Climate experts warn the amount of light and warmth released by the sun is nosediving to levels "not seen for centuries".

They fear a repeat of the so-called 'Maunder Minimum' which triggered Arctic winter whiteouts and led to the River Thames freezing 300 years ago.

The Met Office-led study warns although the effect will be offset by recent global warming, Britain faces years of unusually cold winters.

A spokesman said: "A return to low solar activity not seen for centuries could increase the chances of cold winters in Europe and eastern parts of the United States but wouldn't halt global warming.

"Return of 'grand solar minimum' could affect European and eastern US winters."

Long episodes of low solar activity were seen during the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715 and the 'Dalton Minimum' from 1790 to 1830.

Both periods coincided with colder-than-normal global temperatures earning the title from scientists of "Little Ice Age."

The latest study, published in Nature Communications, found reduced solar activity will lead to an overall cooling of the Earth of 0.1C.

A much bigger cooling effect is expected for Britain, northern Europe and North America where thermometers could drop by 0.8C.

Amanda Maycock, of the University of Cambridge and National Centre for Atmospheric Science, said: "It's important that we consider the potential impact of changes in UV output when looking at future climate."








Anyone caught up in the media frenzy and hype over a 'little ice age' might like to read this report
- top to bottom -
for a bit of a reality check

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4277443.htm



a rather hysterical response to say the least.  there were some beauties in there such as the little ice age only occuring in the northern hemisphere. the evidence for that is nil and a presumptous bit of nonsense.  Adn the fact the Maunder Minimum occured durign the Littel Ice age?  Irrelevent. of course it is because nothing at all is ever allowed to dispute the holy religion that is climate change, not even the weather which itself refuses to co-operate.

complete drivel as always.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Very_Vinnie on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:02pm

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 8:13pm:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:29am:
No matter HOW many times you repeat David Rose's "tabloid tales"






Have you any idea how pitiful and ridiculous the David Rose argument is? ... obviously not   ;D




I'm not a follower
I AGREE his argument is "pitiful and ridiculous"
I thought I'd made that OBVIOUS ?



 


Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by longweekend58 on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:09pm

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:02pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 8:13pm:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:29am:
No matter HOW many times you repeat David Rose's "tabloid tales"






Have you any idea how pitiful and ridiculous the David Rose argument is? ... obviously not   ;D




I'm not a follower
I AGREE his argument is "pitiful and ridiculous"
I thought I'd made that OBVIOUS ?



 



i dont think you find ANYTHING obvious.  you believe what you are told and lack the education or intelligence to confirm it yourself.

you are most to be pitied.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by innocentbystander. on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:12pm

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:02pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 8:13pm:

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:29am:
No matter HOW many times you repeat David Rose's "tabloid tales"






Have you any idea how pitiful and ridiculous the David Rose argument is? ... obviously not   ;D




I'm not a follower
I AGREE his argument is "pitiful and ridiculous"
I thought I'd made that OBVIOUS ?



 




All you are doing is waving a white flag.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Very_Vinnie on Aug 13th, 2015 at 1:12pm

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 6:23pm:
Anyone caught up in the media frenzy and hype over a 'little ice age' might like to read this report
- top to bottom -
for a bit of a reality check


"...  but most predictions put it at around a very modest 0.2 degrees, which would be easily exceeded by ... predicted global warming ...

Which means temperatures will keep on rising without a new Maunder Minimum—according to the Potsdam Climate Institute"







http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4277443.htm



Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 13th, 2015 at 3:39pm
Wow, a media program that poses as scientific. I'll have to adjust my thinking.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by mariacostel on Aug 13th, 2015 at 3:48pm
I think that whatever the final climate outcome is, no scientist, activist or other observer will ever get it right. If there is one thing that defies prediction it is weather and climate.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 13th, 2015 at 4:10pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 3:48pm:
I think that whatever the final climate outcome is, no scientist, activist or other observer will ever get it right. If there is one thing that defies prediction it is weather and climate.
Posted by: lee  Mark & Quote Quote



'The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. '

http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Art Vandelay on Aug 13th, 2015 at 4:37pm
Climate change alarmism.

It's as easy as ABC.


Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 13th, 2015 at 4:39pm

lee wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 4:10pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 3:48pm:
I think that whatever the final climate outcome is, no scientist, activist or other observer will ever get it right. If there is one thing that defies prediction it is weather and climate.
Posted by: lee  Mark & Quote Quote



'The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. '

http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm


Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.

(...from your source:  ::))

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by mariacostel on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:19pm

lee wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 4:10pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 3:48pm:
I think that whatever the final climate outcome is, no scientist, activist or other observer will ever get it right. If there is one thing that defies prediction it is weather and climate.
Posted by: lee  Mark & Quote Quote



'The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. '



Or.... what I said. LOL

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:28pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 4:39pm:
Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate


What statistical nature? It is chaotic.

' Due to the sensitive dependence of chaotic systems on initial conditions, their behavior over sufficiently long times is unpredictable in practice, even though the underlying dynamics is deterministic. Instead of attempting to accurately describe a phase space trajectory over a long duration, it often makes more sense to try to calculate statistical properties of the system, such as, the frequency with which different regions of phase space are visited. '

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/chaos/18/3/10.1063/1.2960541

So what were the initial conditions?

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:30pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:19pm:
Or.... what I said. LOL



Exactly. ;)

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:43pm

lee wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 4:39pm:
Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate


What statistical nature? It is chaotic.

' Due to the sensitive dependence of chaotic systems on initial conditions, their behavior over sufficiently long times is unpredictable in practice, even though the underlying dynamics is deterministic. Instead of attempting to accurately describe a phase space trajectory over a long duration, it often makes more sense to try to calculate statistical properties of the system, such as, the frequency with which different regions of phase space are visited. '

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/chaos/18/3/10.1063/1.2960541

So what were the initial conditions?

HOW ELSE DO YOU MEASURE A COMPLEX SYSTEM?

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:20pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:43pm:
HOW ELSE DO YOU MEASURE A COMPLEX SYSTEM?



Depends on your definition of "Measure".

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by mariacostel on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:28pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:43pm:

lee wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 4:39pm:
Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate


What statistical nature? It is chaotic.

' Due to the sensitive dependence of chaotic systems on initial conditions, their behavior over sufficiently long times is unpredictable in practice, even though the underlying dynamics is deterministic. Instead of attempting to accurately describe a phase space trajectory over a long duration, it often makes more sense to try to calculate statistical properties of the system, such as, the frequency with which different regions of phase space are visited. '


So what were the initial conditions?

HOW ELSE DO YOU MEASURE A COMPLEX SYSTEM?


You can't measure complex systems. That is why they are called complex in the first place.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by mariacostel on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:29pm

lee wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:20pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:43pm:
HOW ELSE DO YOU MEASURE A COMPLEX SYSTEM?



Depends on your definition of "Measure".


Guess. Dream. Fantasise. Estimate. Ask your friends.

The imprecise nature of the climate debate is truly irritating.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:41pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:29pm:

lee wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:20pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:43pm:
HOW ELSE DO YOU MEASURE A COMPLEX SYSTEM?



Depends on your definition of "Measure".


Guess. Dream. Fantasise. Estimate. Ask your friends.

The imprecise nature of the climate debate is truly irritating.

...we should just get back to paying our rent and just shutting up like good sheeple perhaps?

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:42pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:43pm:

lee wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 4:39pm:
Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate


What statistical nature? It is chaotic.

' Due to the sensitive dependence of chaotic systems on initial conditions, their behavior over sufficiently long times is unpredictable in practice, even though the underlying dynamics is deterministic. Instead of attempting to accurately describe a phase space trajectory over a long duration, it often makes more sense to try to calculate statistical properties of the system, such as, the frequency with which different regions of phase space are visited. '


So what were the initial conditions?

HOW ELSE DO YOU MEASURE A COMPLEX SYSTEM?


You can't measure complex systems. That is why they are called complex in the first place.


So what is an indicator?  ::) ::)

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by mariacostel on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:53pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:42pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:43pm:

lee wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 4:39pm:
Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate


What statistical nature? It is chaotic.

' Due to the sensitive dependence of chaotic systems on initial conditions, their behavior over sufficiently long times is unpredictable in practice, even though the underlying dynamics is deterministic. Instead of attempting to accurately describe a phase space trajectory over a long duration, it often makes more sense to try to calculate statistical properties of the system, such as, the frequency with which different regions of phase space are visited. '


So what were the initial conditions?

HOW ELSE DO YOU MEASURE A COMPLEX SYSTEM?


You can't measure complex systems. That is why they are called complex in the first place.


So what is an indicator?  ::) ::)


Litmus.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Karnal on Aug 13th, 2015 at 7:52pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:53pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:42pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:43pm:

lee wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 4:39pm:
Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate


What statistical nature? It is chaotic.

' Due to the sensitive dependence of chaotic systems on initial conditions, their behavior over sufficiently long times is unpredictable in practice, even though the underlying dynamics is deterministic. Instead of attempting to accurately describe a phase space trajectory over a long duration, it often makes more sense to try to calculate statistical properties of the system, such as, the frequency with which different regions of phase space are visited. '


So what were the initial conditions?

HOW ELSE DO YOU MEASURE A COMPLEX SYSTEM?


You can't measure complex systems. That is why they are called complex in the first place.


So what is an indicator?  ::) ::)


Litmus.


There’s no need to be rude, Maria. You might be new here, but you’re like any other member.We must all be nice to each other, dear.

A recent member was banned for calling people names. We all miss him, but he needs to learn his lesson.

I do hope Longweekend58 will be back in no time.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by mariacostel on Aug 13th, 2015 at 8:07pm

Karnal wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 7:52pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:53pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:42pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:43pm:

lee wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 4:39pm:
Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate


What statistical nature? It is chaotic.

' Due to the sensitive dependence of chaotic systems on initial conditions, their behavior over sufficiently long times is unpredictable in practice, even though the underlying dynamics is deterministic. Instead of attempting to accurately describe a phase space trajectory over a long duration, it often makes more sense to try to calculate statistical properties of the system, such as, the frequency with which different regions of phase space are visited. '


So what were the initial conditions?

HOW ELSE DO YOU MEASURE A COMPLEX SYSTEM?


You can't measure complex systems. That is why they are called complex in the first place.


So what is an indicator?  ::) ::)


Litmus.


There’s no need to be rude, Maria. You might be new here, but you’re like any other member.We must all be nice to each other, dear.

A recent member was banned for calling people names. We all miss him, but he needs to learn his lesson.

I do hope Longweekend58 will be back in no time.


Litmus. Indicator. High School Chemistry. Google it.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Karnal on Aug 13th, 2015 at 8:14pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 8:07pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 7:52pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:53pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:42pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:43pm:

lee wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 4:39pm:
Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate


What statistical nature? It is chaotic.

' Due to the sensitive dependence of chaotic systems on initial conditions, their behavior over sufficiently long times is unpredictable in practice, even though the underlying dynamics is deterministic. Instead of attempting to accurately describe a phase space trajectory over a long duration, it often makes more sense to try to calculate statistical properties of the system, such as, the frequency with which different regions of phase space are visited. '


So what were the initial conditions?

HOW ELSE DO YOU MEASURE A COMPLEX SYSTEM?


You can't measure complex systems. That is why they are called complex in the first place.


So what is an indicator?  ::) ::)


Litmus.


There’s no need to be rude, Maria. You might be new here, but you’re like any other member.We must all be nice to each other, dear.

A recent member was banned for calling people names. We all miss him, but he needs to learn his lesson.

I do hope Longweekend58 will be back in no time.


Litmus. Indicator. High School Chemistry. Google it.


Please excuse me, dear. I feel awful.

I only have year 8 chemistry, you see, but I’m much better at maths.

I’m largely self-taught. I could do a PhD, but the professors are idiots.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 13th, 2015 at 8:33pm

Karnal wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 7:52pm:
There’s no need to be rude, Maria.



There have been comments that have been rude expressed in the debate. This wasn't one of them.

Lighten up, buttercup.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Aug 13th, 2015 at 8:58pm
Prediction of new ice age is nonsense.

A number of Ozpolitic denizens have been claiming a new ice age is imminent based on a forecast reduction in sunspots and solar flares. However, the facts are otherwise. The fact is that solar radiation on earth's surfaces is very constant and largely independent of sunspot activity and varies by only 0.1% during extreme low and high sunspot activity.

Therefore denizen Bobby's investment in igloo construction business is likely to suffer meltdown.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/07/13/sunspot_cycles_won_t_cause_a_mini_ice_age_by_2030.html

Quote:
Sunspots have been observed on a regular basis for at least 400 years, and over that period, there’s a weak correlation between the number of sunspots and global temperature—most notably during a drastic downturn in the number of sunspots from about 1645 to 1715. Known as the Maunder minimum, this phenomenon happened about the same time as a decades-long European cold snap known as the Little Ice Age. That connection led to theory that this variability remains the dominant factor in Earth’s climate. Though that idea is still widely circulated, it’s been disproved. In reality, sunspots fluctuate in an 11-year cycle, and the current cycle is the weakest in 100 years—yet 2014 was the planet’s hottest year in recorded history.

If you look closely at the original press release, the study’s author, Valentina Zharkova, never implied a new ice age is imminent—only that we may see a sharp downturn in the number of sunspots. Yes, the sun is a variable star, but its output is remarkably stable. The amount of energy we receive from the sun just doesn’t change fast enough to cause a rapid-onset ice age in just a few decades.

The root of the problem here may be a poorly worded quote in the press release implying an imminent 60 percent decline in solar activity. Yes, numbers of sunspots can vary by that much or even more on an 11-year cycle, but the sun’s output—the total amount of energy we get—is extremely stable and only changes by about 0.1 percent, even in extreme sunspot cycles like the one Zharkova is predicting.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Sir Bobby on Aug 13th, 2015 at 9:05pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 8:58pm:
Prediction of new ice age is nonsense.

A number of Ozpolitic denizens have been claiming a new ice age is imminent based on a forecast reduction in sunspots and solar flares. However, the facts are otherwise. The fact is that solar radiation on earth's surfaces is very constant and largely independent of sunspot activity and varies by only 0.1% during extreme low and high sunspot activity.

Therefore denizen Bobby's investment in igloo construction business is likely to suffer meltdown.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/07/13/sunspot_cycles_won_t_cause_a_mini_ice_age_by_2030.html

Quote:
Sunspots have been observed on a regular basis for at least 400 years, and over that period, there’s a weak correlation between the number of sunspots and global temperature—most notably during a drastic downturn in the number of sunspots from about 1645 to 1715. Known as the Maunder minimum, this phenomenon happened about the same time as a decades-long European cold snap known as the Little Ice Age. That connection led to theory that this variability remains the dominant factor in Earth’s climate. Though that idea is still widely circulated, it’s been disproved. In reality, sunspots fluctuate in an 11-year cycle, and the current cycle is the weakest in 100 years—yet 2014 was the planet’s hottest year in recorded history.

If you look closely at the original press release, the study’s author, Valentina Zharkova, never implied a new ice age is imminent—only that we may see a sharp downturn in the number of sunspots. Yes, the sun is a variable star, but its output is remarkably stable. The amount of energy we receive from the sun just doesn’t change fast enough to cause a rapid-onset ice age in just a few decades.

The root of the problem here may be a poorly worded quote in the press release implying an imminent 60 percent decline in solar activity. Yes, numbers of sunspots can vary by that much or even more on an 11-year cycle, but the sun’s output—the total amount of energy we get—is extremely stable and only changes by about 0.1 percent, even in extreme sunspot cycles like the one Zharkova is predicting.



Will you apologise after the next Northern Winter?

Will more records be broken for the lowest temperatures & highest snowfalls?

Pre-forgiven

namaste

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Sir Bobby on Aug 13th, 2015 at 9:06pm

Karnal wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 7:52pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:53pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:42pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:43pm:

lee wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 4:39pm:
Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate


What statistical nature? It is chaotic.

' Due to the sensitive dependence of chaotic systems on initial conditions, their behavior over sufficiently long times is unpredictable in practice, even though the underlying dynamics is deterministic. Instead of attempting to accurately describe a phase space trajectory over a long duration, it often makes more sense to try to calculate statistical properties of the system, such as, the frequency with which different regions of phase space are visited. '


So what were the initial conditions?

HOW ELSE DO YOU MEASURE A COMPLEX SYSTEM?


You can't measure complex systems. That is why they are called complex in the first place.


So what is an indicator?  ::) ::)


Litmus.


There’s no need to be rude, Maria. You might be new here, but you’re like any other member.We must all be nice to each other, dear.

A recent member was banned for calling people names. We all miss him, but he needs to learn his lesson.

I do hope Longweekend58 will be back in no time.



Was Longy banned again?   ;D


He's a nasty one.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by innocentbystander. on Aug 14th, 2015 at 9:03am
Do you think the coming ice age has been caused by all this additional co2 Bobby?

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 14th, 2015 at 1:18pm

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 24th, 2015 at 9:53am:
Try NASA - or our own BOM



'Far from being published and peer reviewed, the methods are secret, and rely on — in their own words — a “supervised process” of “expert judgment” and “operator intervention”. In other words, a BOM employee makes their best guess, ruling in or out the “optimal” choices, making assumptions that are not documented anywhere.'

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/06/if-it-cant-be-replicated-it-isnt-science-bom-admits-temperature-adjustments-are-secret/

Science and Replicability go hand in hand

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by BowDownToCHOPPERINTERNETGATE on Aug 14th, 2015 at 2:18pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 8:07pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 7:52pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:53pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:42pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:43pm:

lee wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 4:39pm:
Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate


What statistical nature? It is chaotic.

' Due to the sensitive dependence of chaotic systems on initial conditions, their behavior over sufficiently long times is unpredictable in practice, even though the underlying dynamics is deterministic. Instead of attempting to accurately describe a phase space trajectory over a long duration, it often makes more sense to try to calculate statistical properties of the system, such as, the frequency with which different regions of phase space are visited. '


So what were the initial conditions?

HOW ELSE DO YOU MEASURE A COMPLEX SYSTEM?


You can't measure complex systems. That is why they are called complex in the first place.


So what is an indicator?  ::) ::)


Litmus.


There’s no need to be rude, Maria. You might be new here, but you’re like any other member.We must all be nice to each other, dear.

A recent member was banned for calling people names. We all miss him, but he needs to learn his lesson.

I do hope Longweekend58 will be back in no time.


Litmus. Indicator. High School Chemistry. Google it.

Internet address space is being bought by fossil fools: like we don't know  ::) ::)

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by gizmo_2655 on Aug 14th, 2015 at 2:22pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 2:18pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 8:07pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 7:52pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:53pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:42pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 6:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:43pm:

lee wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 5:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 13th, 2015 at 4:39pm:
Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate


What statistical nature? It is chaotic.

' Due to the sensitive dependence of chaotic systems on initial conditions, their behavior over sufficiently long times is unpredictable in practice, even though the underlying dynamics is deterministic. Instead of attempting to accurately describe a phase space trajectory over a long duration, it often makes more sense to try to calculate statistical properties of the system, such as, the frequency with which different regions of phase space are visited. '


So what were the initial conditions?

HOW ELSE DO YOU MEASURE A COMPLEX SYSTEM?


You can't measure complex systems. That is why they are called complex in the first place.


So what is an indicator?  ::) ::)


Litmus.


There’s no need to be rude, Maria. You might be new here, but you’re like any other member.We must all be nice to each other, dear.

A recent member was banned for calling people names. We all miss him, but he needs to learn his lesson.

I do hope Longweekend58 will be back in no time.


Litmus. Indicator. High School Chemistry. Google it.

Internet address space is being bought by fossil fools: like we don't know  ::) ::)


You mean people like you (fools who complain about fossil FUEL) are buying internet address space???

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Sir Bobby on Aug 14th, 2015 at 10:13pm

innocentbystander. wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 9:03am:
Do you think the coming ice age has been caused by all this additional co2 Bobby?


I agree that CO2 does cause global warming -

it's just that for the next 15 to 25 years other factors will counteract it.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Gnads on Aug 15th, 2015 at 7:55am
We're having an  "ICE AGE" alright

only it has nothing to do with global climate change

& all to do with morons taking  'crystal meth'.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by mariacostel on Aug 15th, 2015 at 12:59pm

Bobby. wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 10:13pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 9:03am:
Do you think the coming ice age has been caused by all this additional co2 Bobby?


I agree that CO2 does cause global warming -

it's just that for the next 15 to 25 years other factors will counteract it.


The factors that affect climate are huge in number and massive in complexity. That of course would account for why all the predictions and models simply fail and by a large margin. A lot of people seem intent on maintaining a doomsday scenario for planet earth and they simply create new ones when old ones expire. Has anyone noticed that Climate Change Fear appeared around the end of the Cold War and the worry of nuclear annihilation? And true to form, when the scaremongering of Climate Change eventually fades having been destroyed by climate's utter refusal to do as predicted, there will be another manufactured fear ready to replace it. It is not a conspiracy, but rather a global need for many people to be constantly at risk of disaster.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by bogarde73 on Aug 15th, 2015 at 1:23pm
Coupled with the need of  some people to have a cause to hang an agenda on.
The truth just doesn't do it for many.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Aug 15th, 2015 at 1:31pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 12:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 10:13pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 9:03am:
Do you think the coming ice age has been caused by all this additional co2 Bobby?


I agree that CO2 does cause global warming -

it's just that for the next 15 to 25 years other factors will counteract it.


The factors that affect climate are huge in number and massive in complexity. That of course would account for why all the predictions and models simply fail and by a large margin. A lot of people seem intent on maintaining a doomsday scenario for planet earth and they simply create new ones when old ones expire. Has anyone noticed that Climate Change Fear appeared around the end of the Cold War and the worry of nuclear annihilation? And true to form, when the scaremongering of Climate Change eventually fades having been destroyed by climate's utter refusal to do as predicted, there will be another manufactured fear ready to replace it. It is not a conspiracy, but rather a global need for many people to be constantly at risk of disaster.


Methinks that hypotheses of trends from recent climate evidence require too many assumptions to support the proposition that there is no global warming.

The simple average temperature chart exemplifying constant increase in recent years and the fact of trend of recent years being the hottest recorded years after year is difficult to ignore.

Occam's Razor: "The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by mariacostel on Aug 15th, 2015 at 2:00pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 1:31pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 12:59pm:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 10:13pm:

innocentbystander. wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 9:03am:
Do you think the coming ice age has been caused by all this additional co2 Bobby?


I agree that CO2 does cause global warming -

it's just that for the next 15 to 25 years other factors will counteract it.


The factors that affect climate are huge in number and massive in complexity. That of course would account for why all the predictions and models simply fail and by a large margin. A lot of people seem intent on maintaining a doomsday scenario for planet earth and they simply create new ones when old ones expire. Has anyone noticed that Climate Change Fear appeared around the end of the Cold War and the worry of nuclear annihilation? And true to form, when the scaremongering of Climate Change eventually fades having been destroyed by climate's utter refusal to do as predicted, there will be another manufactured fear ready to replace it. It is not a conspiracy, but rather a global need for many people to be constantly at risk of disaster.


Methinks that hypotheses of trends from recent climate evidence require too many assumptions to support the proposition that there is no global warming.

The simple average temperature chart exemplifying constant increase in recent years and the fact of trend of recent years being the hottest recorded years after year is difficult to ignore.

Occam's Razor: "The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."


Your understanding of Occams Razor should do with some refinement. It states that the simplest solution is usually the right one. What is simpler than believing that climate will continue to support human life just as it has for the pat ten thousand years? That is by far the simplest conclusion. Another failure in your understanding is that of "competing hypotheses that predict equally well". I would hope you are not claiming that Climate Change models or predictions have been anything less than a monumental failure.

Occams Razor suggests very powerfully that Climate Change Catastrophe is completely unlikely.


Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by mariacostel on Aug 15th, 2015 at 2:02pm

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 1:23pm:
Coupled with the need of  some people to have a cause to hang an agenda on.
The truth just doesn't do it for many.


It is a well established fact of human behaviour that people not only want but need to have a 'cause' or passion to live for or by. Have you ever met a person with no passions, no interests, no strong opinions and no real desire to achieve?  If you have then you know they have one foot in the grave and the other sliding towards it.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 15th, 2015 at 3:03pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 1:31pm:
Occam's Razor: "The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."



The CAGW models have a huge number of parameters i.e. assumptions.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Aug 15th, 2015 at 3:10pm

lee wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 3:03pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 1:31pm:
Occam's Razor: "The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."



The CAGW models have a huge number of parameters i.e. assumptions.


Not so. The simplest model is recent year rising temperatures average and record highs year after year.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 15th, 2015 at 3:17pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 3:10pm:
The simplest model is recent year rising temperatures average and record highs year after year.



Please provide a link to this model with its associated link to CO2 causing the temperature increase. Or even the correlation of the CO2 to the temperature increase.

CO2 has increased over 30% since the 1990's. The temperatures should have soared, if indeed CO2 is the 'control knob' of global warming.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Aug 15th, 2015 at 3:38pm

lee wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 3:17pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 3:10pm:
The simplest model is recent year rising temperatures average and record highs year after year.



Please provide a link to this model with its associated link to CO2 causing the temperature increase. Or even the correlation of the CO2 to the temperature increase.

CO2 has increased over 30% since the 1990's. The temperatures should have soared, if indeed CO2 is the 'control knob' of global warming.


See information below. Please don't thank me.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/


Quote:
Even the carbon dioxide theory is not new; the basic idea was first precisely stated in 1861 by the noted British physicist John Tyndall. He attributed climatic temperature-changes to variations in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to the theory, carbon dioxide controls temperature because the carbon dioxide molecules in the air absorb infrared radiation. The carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere are virtually transparent to the visible radiation that delivers the sun's energy to the earth. But the earth in turn reradiates much of the energy in the invisible infrared region of the spectrum. This radiation is most intense at wavelengths very close to the principal absorption band (13 to 17 microns) of the carbon dioxide spectrum. When the carbon dioxide concentration is sufficiently high, even its weaker absorption bands become effective, and a greater amount of infrared radiation is absorbed [see chart on page 42]. Because the carbon dioxide blanket prevents its escape into space, the trapped radiation warms up the atmosphere.


CO2 (red) looks very correlated to temperature in the chart below from NOAA.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html


Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Sir Bobby on Aug 15th, 2015 at 3:39pm

lee wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 3:17pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 3:10pm:
The simplest model is recent year rising temperatures average and record highs year after year.



Please provide a link to this model with its associated link to CO2 causing the temperature increase. Or even the correlation of the CO2 to the temperature increase.

CO2 has increased over 30% since the 1990's. The temperatures should have soared, if indeed CO2 is the 'control knob' of global warming.



Good on you Lee -

unlike Mr Unforgiven you are not so gullible as

to believe all the CO2 nonsense that is in our media.

The greatest global warming chemical is H2O  or water vapor.

Unforgiven is forgiven

namaste


Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by mariacostel on Aug 15th, 2015 at 4:10pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 3:10pm:

lee wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 3:03pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 1:31pm:
Occam's Razor: "The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."



The CAGW models have a huge number of parameters i.e. assumptions.


Not so. The simplest model is recent year rising temperatures average and record highs year after year.


I don't quite know how to respond to that 'response'. Laughter? Derisive mocking? Pity? Or maybe a simple reference to a dictionary to understand the meaning of 'model' or even 'assumption'.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Aug 15th, 2015 at 5:41pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 4:10pm:
I don't quite know how to respond to that 'response'. Laughter? Derisive mocking? Pity? Or maybe a simple reference to a dictionary to understand the meaning of 'model' or even 'assumption'.


Here you go. Correlation of models with actual observed temperature. You will have to open the article to see the charts depicting the models.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/aug/25/unpacking-unpaused-global-warming-climate-models-right


Quote:
The figure below from the Huber & Knutti paper illustrates the point nicely. The dotted orange and solid black lines show the unadjusted average model projection and measured global surface temperatures, respectively. The solid orange and dashed black lines show these estimates adjusted to reflect the changes in ocean cycles, solar output, volcanic activity, and surface temperature measurement biases.

Mean of CMIP5 climate model ensemble surface temperature projections unadjusted (dotted orange) and adjusted for internal variability & external forcings (solid orange), vs. Met Office (solid black) and Cowtan & Way (dashed black) observed surface temperatures.
Mean of CMIP5 climate model ensemble surface temperature projections unadjusted (dotted orange) and adjusted for internal variability & external forcings (solid orange), vs. Met Office (solid black) and Cowtan & Way (dashed black) observed surface temperatures. Source; Nature Geoscience; Huber & Knutti (2014)
Huber & Knutti show that when climate models account for these short-term natural changes, their temperature projections are right on the money.

The bad news is that we can’t yet predict changes in ocean cycles, solar output, or volcanic activity accurately, so it’s going to be hard to improve short-term climate model projections. The good news is that these factors make little difference in long-term climate changes or predictions. Solar and volcanic activity tend to be relatively stable, and will barely make a dent in human-caused global warming. Positive and negative phases of ocean cycles cancel each other out over the long-


http://nauka.in.ua/en/news/articles/article_detail/7182

Quote:
Three-quarters of climate change is man-made
Image: greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide have contributed around 0.85 °C to global warming since the 1950s, Swiss researchers have found (L. RINDER/GLOWIMAGES.COM)

Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modellers. Most of the observed warming — at least 74 % — is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.

Since 1950, the average global surface air temperature has increased by more than 0.5 °C. To separate human and natural causes of warming, the researchers analysed changes in the balance of heat energy entering and leaving Earth — a new ‘attribution' method for understanding the physical causes of climate change.

Their findings, which are strikingly similar to results produced by other attribution methods, provide an alternative line of evidence that greenhouse gases, and in particular carbon dioxide, are by far the main culprit of recent global warming. The massive increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times would, in fact, have caused substantially more surface warming were it not for the cooling effects of atmospheric aerosols such as black carbon, they report.

Previous attempts to disentangle anthropogenic and natural warming used a statistically complex technique called optimal fingerprinting to compare observed patterns of surface air temperature over time with the modelled climate response to greenhouse gases, solar radiation and aerosols from volcanoes and other sources.


A balanced view
“Optimal fingerprinting is a powerful technique, but to most people it’s a black box,” says Reto Knutti, a climate scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, one of the authors of the report.

Knutti and his co-author Markus Huber, also at ETH Zurich, took a different approach. They utilized a much simpler model of Earth’s total energy budget and ran the model many thousands of times, using different combinations of a few crucial parameters that contribute to the energy budget. These included global values for incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun, solar energy leaving Earth, heat absorbed by the oceans and climate-feedback effects (such as reduced snow cover, which amplifies warming by exposing darker surfaces that absorb more heat).

By using the combinations that best matched the observed surface warming and ocean heat uptake, the authors then ran the so-constrained model with each energy parameter individually. This enabled them to estimate the contribution of CO2 and other climate-change agents to the observed temperature change. Their study was greatly assisted by a 2009 analysis of observed changes since 1950 in Earth’s energy balance, says Knutti.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 15th, 2015 at 5:49pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 3:38pm:
CO2 (red) looks very correlated to temperature in the chart below from NOAA.



Yes we know CO2 lags temperature. That is not in dispute. There is a lagging correlation.

Correlation is not causation.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 15th, 2015 at 5:56pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 5:41pm:
They utilized a much simpler model of Earth’s total energy budget and ran the model many thousands of times, using different combinations of a few crucial parameters that contribute to the energy budget. These included global values for incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun, solar energy leaving Earth, heat absorbed by the oceans and climate-feedback effects (such as reduced snow cover, which amplifies warming by exposing darker surfaces that absorb more heat).


Knutti and Huber

Seeing that most of the knowledge of of heat absorbed by the oceans is unknown, apart from being "parametrised", seeing as they don't appear to have "done" clouds; their paper is more simplistic than simple.

And that's assuming knowing the "Earth's energy budget".

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Aug 15th, 2015 at 6:09pm
In regard to Australia's CO2 sink capabilities, it's more good luck than good management and was due to heavy rains and flooding in the North of Australia which is a temporary effect. That carbon will be released when the plants die when drought conditions resume.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/05/22/4009078.htm


Quote:
"We saw this incredible carbon sink in the southern hemisphere," says Canadell. "The semi-arid regions were playing the biggest role and particularly the grassy component."

"We never thought savannahs of the world could potentially have this effect."

Even more surprising, he says, was that 60 per cent of the extra plant growth was in Australia's semi-arid areas, north of Alice Springs.

Canadell says the massive semi-arid sink down under was apparently formed following the 2010-2011 La Niña.

It drenched the southern hemisphere and Australia got the lion's share of rainfall resulting in severe flooding in Queensland.

And the Australian savannah, parched from years of drought, soaked up the rain and turned it into new plant growth, says Canadell.

Canadell and colleagues relied on several independent lines of evidence for their findings, including satellites that use passive microwaves to detect the water content of plants.

The researchers also used models that link carbon sinks with atmospheric CO2 and fossil fuel emissions, and models that link vegetation growth with rainfall, temperature and solar radiation.

Canadell says it will be important to incorporate semi-arid carbon sinks in future global major climate models.

Short-term sink
While accumulating CO2 in semi-arid areas may sound like a good thing, Canadell warns that it is important to consider the likely short term nature of some of these sinks.

The IPCC predicts global warming will lead to more climatic extremes in semi-arid areas, including more extremely hot days, severe droughts and heavy rainfall.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by mariacostel on Aug 15th, 2015 at 6:14pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 5:41pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 4:10pm:
I don't quite know how to respond to that 'response'. Laughter? Derisive mocking? Pity? Or maybe a simple reference to a dictionary to understand the meaning of 'model' or even 'assumption'.


Here you go. Correlation of models with actual observed temperature. You will have to open the article to see the charts depicting the models.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/aug/25/unpacking-unpaused-global-warming-climate-models-right


Quote:
The figure below from the Huber & Knutti paper illustrates the point nicely. The dotted orange and solid black lines show the unadjusted average model projection and measured global surface temperatures, respectively. The solid orange and dashed black lines show these estimates adjusted to reflect the changes in ocean cycles, solar output, volcanic activity, and surface temperature measurement biases.

Mean of CMIP5 climate model ensemble surface temperature projections unadjusted (dotted orange) and adjusted for internal variability & external forcings (solid orange), vs. Met Office (solid black) and Cowtan & Way (dashed black) observed surface temperatures.
Mean of CMIP5 climate model ensemble surface temperature projections unadjusted (dotted orange) and adjusted for internal variability & external forcings (solid orange), vs. Met Office (solid black) and Cowtan & Way (dashed black) observed surface temperatures. Source; Nature Geoscience; Huber & Knutti (2014)
Huber & Knutti show that when climate models account for these short-term natural changes, their temperature projections are right on the money.

The bad news is that we can’t yet predict changes in ocean cycles, solar output, or volcanic activity accurately, so it’s going to be hard to improve short-term climate model projections. The good news is that these factors make little difference in long-term climate changes or predictions. Solar and volcanic activity tend to be relatively stable, and will barely make a dent in human-caused global warming. Positive and negative phases of ocean cycles cancel each other out over the long-


http://nauka.in.ua/en/news/articles/article_detail/7182
[quote]Three-quarters of climate change is man-made
Image: greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide have contributed around 0.85 °C to global warming since the 1950s, Swiss researchers have found (L. RINDER/GLOWIMAGES.COM)

Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modellers. Most of the observed warming — at least 74 % — is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.

Since 1950, the average global surface air temperature has increased by more than 0.5 °C. To separate human and natural causes of warming, the researchers analysed changes in the balance of heat energy entering and leaving Earth — a new ‘attribution' method for understanding the physical causes of climate change.

Their findings, which are strikingly similar to results produced by other attribution methods, provide an alternative line of evidence that greenhouse gases, and in particular carbon dioxide, are by far the main culprit of recent global warming. The massive increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times would, in fact, have caused substantially more surface warming were it not for the cooling effects of atmospheric aerosols such as black carbon, they report.

Previous attempts to disentangle anthropogenic and natural warming used a statistically complex technique called optimal fingerprinting to compare observed patterns of surface air temperature over time with the modelled climate response to greenhouse gases, solar radiation and aerosols from volcanoes and other sources.


A balanced view
“Optimal fingerprinting is a powerful technique, but to most people it’s a black box,” says Reto Knutti, a climate scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, one of the authors of the report.

Knutti and his co-author Markus Huber, also at ETH Zurich, took a different approach. They utilized a much simpler model of Earth’s total energy budget and ran the model many thousands of times, using different combinations of a few crucial parameters that contribute to the energy budget. These included global values for incoming shortwave radiation from the Sun, solar energy leaving Earth, heat absorbed by the oceans and climate-feedback effects (such as reduced snow cover, which amplifies warming by exposing darker surfaces that absorb more heat).

By using the combinations that best matched the observed surface warming and ocean heat uptake, the authors then ran the so-constrained model with each energy parameter individually. This enabled them to estimate the contribution of CO2 and other climate-change agents to the observed temperature change. Their study was greatly assisted by a 2009 analysis of observed changes since 1950 in Earth’s energy balance, says Knutti.
[/quote]

You started with an article that claims the mythical and fraudulent 97% consensus claim. Any article that maintains this obvious and well-disproven nonsense goes straight to the bin. It is rubbish.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 15th, 2015 at 7:04pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 6:09pm:
In regard to Australia's CO2 sink capabilities, it's more good luck than good management and was due to heavy rains and flooding in the North of Australia which is a temporary effect. That carbon will be released when the plants die when drought conditions resume.



You rely on a report from 2011. What about earlier reports, do they not count?

'Australia has 149 million hectares of forest.  Of this, 147 million hectares is native forest, dominated by eucalypt (79%) and acacia (7%), and 1.82 million hectares is in plantations[i]. Grassland covers around 440 million hectares of land in Australia[ii]. '

'The amount of carbon taken up every year by dry forests in Australia depends on the weather conditions and age of the trees.  Science tells us that the range for forests with continuous canopies is about 0.5-2 tonnes of carbon per year for each hectare.  Grasslands may have a similar annual rate of net carbon uptake[i], but the long-term storage of carbon per hectare of grasslands is less than that over an average hectare in woody trees. '

http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2009/12/which-plants-store-more-carbon-in-australia-forests-or-grasses/

I'll let you do the Maths @ 1t/ha.

Some trees such as Australian Mountain ash store much more.





'The figures are substantially higher than default biomass carbon values used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to calculate emissions from deforestation and degradation'

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/07/temperate-forests-store-more-carbon-than-tropical-forests-finds-study/


Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Aug 15th, 2015 at 9:44pm

lee wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 7:04pm:
You rely on a report from 2011. What about earlier reports, do they not count?

'Australia has 149 million hectares of forest.  Of this, 147 million hectares is native forest, dominated by eucalypt (79%) and acacia (7%), and 1.82 million hectares is in plantations[i]. Grassland covers around 440 million hectares of land in Australia[ii]. '

'The amount of carbon taken up every year by dry forests in Australia depends on the weather conditions and age of the trees.  Science tells us that the range for forests with continuous canopies is about 0.5-2 tonnes of carbon per year for each hectare.  Grasslands may have a similar annual rate of net carbon uptake[i], but the long-term storage of carbon per hectare of grasslands is less than that over an average hectare in woody trees. '

http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2009/12/which-plants-store-more-carbon-in-austr...

I'll let you do the Maths @ 1t/ha.

Some trees such as Australian Mountain ash store much more.


You say this as if the government of Australia is responsible for the creation of these forests instead of deforestation.

Forests were far larger before the arrival of closet poms who raped the land, cut down the trees and accelerated desertification and salinity.

Australia should be reprimanded and held responsible for the forests it demolished instead of the forests that survived settlement.

Nobody has a right to pollute as you imply.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Art Vandelay on Aug 15th, 2015 at 10:20pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 9:44pm:
Forests were far larger before the arrival of closet poms who raped the land, cut down the trees and accelerated desertification and salinity.

Australia should be reprimanded and held responsible for the forests it demolished instead of the forests that survived settlement.

Nobody has a right to pollute as you imply.


Don't you mean that England should be reprimanded?

Mind you, it's probably a bit late now.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 16th, 2015 at 11:16am

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 6:09pm:
In regard to Australia's CO2 sink capabilities, it's more good luck than good management and was due to heavy rains and flooding in the North of Australia which is a temporary effect. That carbon will be released when the plants die when drought conditions resume.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/05/22/4009078.htm



I have re-read the article. Nowhere does it say that Australia is NOT a carbon sink, even under drought conditions. Merely that they were surprised at the size of the increase.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 16th, 2015 at 11:20am

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 9:44pm:
You say this as if the government of Australia is responsible for the creation of these forests instead of deforestation.

Forests were far larger before the arrival of closet poms who raped the land, cut down the trees and accelerated desertification and salinity.

Australia should be reprimanded and held responsible for the forests it demolished instead of the forests that survived settlement.



So you still say we should not be feeding the world, or even Australia for that matter? That makes you at least on a level of Paul Ehrlich.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Aug 16th, 2015 at 11:42am

Art Vandelay wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 10:20pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 9:44pm:
Forests were far larger before the arrival of closet poms who raped the land, cut down the trees and accelerated desertification and salinity.

Australia should be reprimanded and held responsible for the forests it demolished instead of the forests that survived settlement.

Nobody has a right to pollute as you imply.


Don't you mean that England should be reprimanded?

Mind you, it's probably a bit late now.


England emits less pollution than Australia and has actually decreased emissions since 1990 compared to Australia's increase.

UK sinks more carbon per square km of land area than Australia.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 16th, 2015 at 11:56am

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 16th, 2015 at 11:42am:
UK sinks more carbon per square km of land area than Australia.



Not according to IBUKI (GEOSAT)





http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/05/the-revenge-of-the-climate-reparations/

How can a net emitter of CO2, sink more CO2 than a net sink?

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Aug 16th, 2015 at 12:08pm

lee wrote on Aug 16th, 2015 at 11:56am:

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 16th, 2015 at 11:42am:
UK sinks more carbon per square km of land area than Australia.



Not according to IBUKI (GEOSAT)



http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/top-20-carbon-sequestering-nations.jpg

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/05/the-revenge-of-the-climate-reparations/

How can a net emitter of CO2, sink more CO2 than a net sink?


You are obfuscating again. Your data is from 2010. You must have searched hard to create that obfuscation.

UK has since reduced its emissions considerably while Australia has increased and is still increasing.

Furthermore deforestation, land degradation and desertification has decreased Australia's contribution to carbon sink.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Ajax on Aug 16th, 2015 at 12:18pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 16th, 2015 at 12:08pm:

lee wrote on Aug 16th, 2015 at 11:56am:

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 16th, 2015 at 11:42am:
UK sinks more carbon per square km of land area than Australia.



Not according to IBUKI (GEOSAT)



http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/top-20-carbon-sequestering-nations.jpg

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/05/the-revenge-of-the-climate-reparations/

How can a net emitter of CO2, sink more CO2 than a net sink?


You are obfuscating again. Your data is from 2010. You must have searched hard to create that obfuscation.

UK has since reduced its emissions considerably while Australia has increased and is still increasing.

Furthermore deforestation, land degradation and desertification has decreased Australia's contribution to carbon sink.


Australia's carbon dioxide (Co2)  footprint at around 1.5% of all the manmade CO2 budget is one of the smallest in the civilised world.

Ever wondered why our government always gives us our carbon dioxide footprint in per capita terms.......??????

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 16th, 2015 at 12:31pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 16th, 2015 at 12:08pm:
You are obfuscating again. Your data is from 2010. You must have searched hard to create that obfuscation.

UK has since reduced its emissions considerably while Australia has increased and is still increasing.

Furthermore deforestation, land degradation and desertification has decreased Australia's contribution to carbon sink.



Please, please, oh please - show us the link.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 16th, 2015 at 1:07pm
From your favourite source -

'But official figures published on Thursday show that because of increases in 2010 and 2012, the UK's carbon footprint is still roughly the same as it was in 2009 despite government promises to cut emissions.'

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/27/greenhouse-gas-emissions-fall-in-the-uk

'Total  greenhouse  gas  emissions  have been  provisionally  estimated  at 523.1 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) for the twelve months leading to Q1 2015, a decrease of
27.7MtCO2e  (5.0 percent) compared to the  same  period  in 2014,  when emissions were estimated to be 550.8MtCO2e.'

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/443177/Quarterly_statistical_release_Q1_2015.pdf


The latest figures I can find for Australia -

'Annual emissions for 2013-14 are estimated to be 542.6 Mt CO2-e3. This represents a 1.4% decline in emissions when compared with the previous year'

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/2bd59b0d-cf8f-4bdf-8e23-5250e4361c24/files/nggi-quarterly-update-june-2014_0.pdf

Of course the UK imports electricity so is not responsible for those emissions.

'UK Electricity imports, billion kilowatthours: For that indicator, The U.S. Energy Information Administration provides data for the UK from 1980 to 2013. The average value for the UK during that period was 10.1 billion kilowatthours with a minumum of 0 billion kilowatthours in 1981 and a maximum of 17.53 billion kilowatthours in 2013. '

http://www.theglobaleconomy.com/United-Kingdom/electricity_imports/

So it would seem pretty much lineball,



Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Aug 16th, 2015 at 3:04pm
Denizen lee's disinformation sources will dry up as they are gradually exposed and shut down.

Union of Concerned Scientists published the following exposure of the disinformation campaigns:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos?_ga=1.88036696.1372693862.1439700810&__utma=17653163.1258359828.1439701080.1439701080.1439701080.1&__utmb=17653163.1.10.1439701080&__utmc=17653163&__utmx=-&__utmz=17653163.1439701080.1.1.utmcsr=ucsusa.org|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html&__utmv=-&__utmk=191939818#.VdAYiLKqqko


Quote:
The climate deception dossiers
Containing 85 internal memos totaling more than 330 pages, the seven dossiers reveal a range of deceptive tactics deployed by the fossil fuel industry. These include forged letters to Congress, secret funding of a supposedly independent scientist, the creation of fake grassroots organizations, multiple efforts to deliberately manufacture uncertainty about climate science, and more.

The documents clearly show that:

Fossil fuel companies have intentionally spread climate disinformation for decades.

Fossil fuel company leaders knew that their products were harmful to people and the planet but still chose to actively deceive the public and deny this harm.

The campaign of deception continues today.

Download the full report for in-depth information on each of the seven dossiers. The complete collection of documents is available in the sources and resources section below.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 16th, 2015 at 4:17pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 16th, 2015 at 3:04pm:
Denizen lee's disinformation sources will dry up as they are gradually exposed and shut down.



And NOWHERE does it say that UK's emissions are lower than Australia's. NOWHERE does it say IBUKI dataset is bogus. NOWHERE does it say that Australia s not a natural carbon sink.

Every time I show you wrong; you change the goalposts.

From your source

'UPDATE (July 9, 2015): As this report went to press, a newly discovered email from a former Exxon employee revealed that the company was already factoring climate change into decisions about new fossil fuel extraction as early as 1981.'

1. Email was very limited in 1981.
2. The author was Lenny Bernstein, a PhD in Chemical Engineering who was also a Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 7 (Industry) of the Mitigation section of the IPCC AR4.

Extracts-

'Exxon NEVER denied the potential for humans to impact the climate system. It did question - legitimately, in my opinion - the validity of some of the science.'

'It is the only company mentioned in Alyssa's e-mail, even though, in my opinion, it is far more ethical that many other large corporations.'

'Having spent twenty years working for Exxon and ten working for Mobil, I know that much of that ethical behavior comes from a business calculation that it is cheaper in the long run to be ethical than unethical. '

https://www.ohio.edu/appliedethics/iape-speakers-and-events.cfm

It was a publicly available post in reply to Alyssa Bernstein. So it wasn't secret. It wasn't a 1981 email. Lenny Bernstein isn't a climate scientist.

The Union of Concerned Scientists seem to lack scientific integrity, posting something so false.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by Unforgiven on Aug 16th, 2015 at 4:45pm
Maybe ExxonMobil's funding both sides, one openly and the other surreptitiously, in order to create the maximum degree of obfuscation.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by lee on Aug 16th, 2015 at 5:18pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 16th, 2015 at 4:45pm:
Maybe ExxonMobil's funding both sides, one openly and the other surreptitiously, in order to create the maximum degree of obfuscation.



Maybe the Queen's a King.

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by mariacostel on Aug 16th, 2015 at 6:05pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 16th, 2015 at 11:42am:

Art Vandelay wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 10:20pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 9:44pm:
Forests were far larger before the arrival of closet poms who raped the land, cut down the trees and accelerated desertification and salinity.

Australia should be reprimanded and held responsible for the forests it demolished instead of the forests that survived settlement.

Nobody has a right to pollute as you imply.


Don't you mean that England should be reprimanded?

Mind you, it's probably a bit late now.


England emits less pollution than Australia and has actually decreased emissions since 1990 compared to Australia's increase.

UK sinks more carbon per square km of land area than Australia.


That is a rather silly claim.  How many sandy deserts are there in UK? How many totally inhospitable treeless plains do they have?

Title: Re: Little Ice Age imminent?
Post by innocentbystander. on Aug 16th, 2015 at 6:16pm
Why the war on plant food at all when history has shown us and science has made it patently clear that co2 has f_ck all influence on climate.

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.