Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Un To Release Latest Update To Global Warming

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24281865

Drafts of this dense, complex document seen by the BBC indicate that scientists are more convinced than ever that the planet is warming and that humans are responsible for the majority of it, especially over the past 50 years.

This message is likely to be backed up by improved observations of changes in polar ice, sea level and temperature.

However, some projections of future temperature rise are likely to be lowered from the previous IPCC report in 2007. This is because of a hiatus, or pause, in warming that has occurred since 1998.

Nonetheless, Prof Jean Pascal van Ypersele, the vice-chairman of the IPCC, emphasised that the panel's statements were robust, and raised the concern that the target of staying below a 2 degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures was becoming increasingly difficult to attain.

So it's still a problem even though frankly we only have limited data on our planet, considering how old the planet is even a 100,000 years worth of data is an issue. We have no idea what the natural cycle of the Earth / Sun are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can ignore this report...The UN is reported ONLY to fund scientists that SUPPORT the meme that global warming is man made...you see, it fits perfectly with Official Agenda 21.

hence, their report will show the desired result.....or report that changes are currently being looked at with new algorythms and more funding needed ( meaning even they cant prove MMGW and need a facesaving statement for the time being while the Agenda forges ahead).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can ignore this report...The UN is reported ONLY to fund scientists that SUPPORT the meme that global warming is man made...you see, it fits perfectly with Official Agenda 21.

hence, their report will show the desired result.....or report that changes are currently being looked at with new algorythms and more funding needed ( meaning even they cant prove MMGW and need a facesaving statement for the time being while the Agenda forges ahead).

What do you think Agenda 21 is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the BBC report:

Scientists are 95% certain that humans have been the "dominant cause" of the rise in temperatures since the 1950s.

They say that a pause in warming over the past 15 years is too short to reflect long term trends.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615

So: 1950s, say 1955.

Right:

1955 - 1998 43 years

1998 - 2013 15 years

So with a sample period of 60 years the most recent, and therefore most relevant, 25% is being discounted as being too short. These are scientists you say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Managed decline back to the stone age?

It does seem to be a global agreement to give precedence to nature over Human Beings....Global Warming caused by man is one of the foundations of the Policy being needed at all.

I cant be arsed to read the report....I think it will be summed up exactly as I already stated....this is how politics work...1.find advantage for me.2. persuade others through a threat they can easily perceive.3. Offer solution..4 cash in.

hard to reverse this once phase 4 is in operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the BBC report:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-24292615

So: 1950s, say 1955.

Right:

1955 - 1998 43 years

1998 - 2013 15 years

So with a sample period of 60 years the most recent, and therefore most relevant, 25% is being discounted as being too short. These are scientists you say?

As I said, pay a man who uses a hammer to fix a problem, he is likely to nail it. even if screws were the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many sciences, where computer models are used to recreate natural processes there is always a huge debate over their accuracy and effectiveness. While you can model machines very well - cogs, valves, etc - the natural world has SO MANY variables that can have an influence the model is inevitably over simplified or a basketcase of badly modelled variables. Now in the scientific world this doesn't really matter - the debates can be had, the models can be used for broader indications with caveats, perhaps they can be improved over time.

It's when the imperfect science gets thrown into the political realm as gospel truth and become big money that things go wrong. Now simple scientific work of can become dynamite.

When billions are spent on global wild goose chases rather than, say, building good infrastructure, sanitation that pulls people out of poverty, grows a middle class, and provides an incentive for smaller families and a disincentive for war and conflicts it's a huge moral issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global Warming on Mars

The planet Mars has also undergone global warming in the past few decades.

And everyone knows that Martians are green!!

Shows how persavise the meme is. even in that article, (2007) it states that both planets had experienced warming for years.

yet we read this week, the last 15 years of data where we are COOLER than predicted is a glitch.

2007 was what...5 years ago, so we already had 10 years of uncertaincy...yet the article is pretty much 100% we were warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Shall we just ignore this data, because we're sure we're right anyway, and it will just confuse the impressionable public if we give them all the facts?"

The word "scientist" is not applicable to these people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all"********" I would rather hear about big engines! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Shall we just ignore this data, because we're sure we're right anyway, and it will just confuse the impressionable public if we give them all the facts?"

Absolutely correct.

The same logic used by the anti-smoking lobby with regards to passive smoking, and those arguing for a tightening of the drink driving laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

Worth posting, I think, just to put the recent slowdown in context:

Fig.A2.gif

Edit: Source

I'm going to regret asking this, but WTF is a land-ocean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worth posting, I think, just to put the recent slowdown in context:

Fig.A2.gif

Edit: Source

And the instruments in 1880 were calibrated how? And how did they arrive at a -0.2C anomaly at the start of the data set?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to regret asking this, but WTF is a land-ocean?

According to this, it just means that the graph is based on data taken both on land and at sea, rather than just data from (land-based) meteorological stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the instruments in 1880 were calibrated how? And how did they arrive at a -0.2C anomaly at the start of the data set?

Obviously the earlier data are not so accurate; this is reflected by the green error bars that are intended to give a rough idea of the errors involved. The baseline for the anomaly is arbitrary, a bit like the definition of a 0 point on a temperature scale; what's important are the differences. Here the average 1951 to 1980 temperature is used as a baseline, but you equally validly use any other baseline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to put your 130 years data into context:

2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Medieval Warm Period is also dealt with in the new report, but we'll need to wait a few days to see the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can ignore this report...The UN is reported ONLY to fund scientists that SUPPORT the meme that global warming is man made...you see, it fits perfectly with Official Agenda 21.

hence, their report will show the desired result.....or report that changes are currently being looked at with new algorythms and more funding needed ( meaning even they cant prove MMGW and need a facesaving statement for the time being while the Agenda forges ahead).

The UN doesn't fund the scientists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to put your 130 years data into context:

2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg

What data is that graph based on? Presumably proxies of some sort, since they didn't have thermometers in the dark ages! Nor had they discovered a fair chunk of the world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to put your 2,000 years into context ;) :

5k4vwk.jpg

And what data is that based on? Obviously not direct temperature measurements!

Edit: I'd also note that your graph applies to just the northern hemisphere, so you'd expect larger fluctuations than for the globe as a whole. It's not directly comparable to graphs of global temperature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   203 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.