DGBAMA
Well-Known Member
The last time global warning was a "frenzied" topic i experienced a record cold winter. Lol.
Global warming?
- Thread starter Jack in NB
- Start date
- Status
BarG
Founding Member
I used to live that way. Now I need others. A hermits confession! A postage stamp glue would last me about 0. Use that stamp and you can change your world.
workhorse_01
Well-Known Member
Ok then it's simple to get the FTT info to them. Have a copy of the forum on cd, and each rosetta stone language Burried with you. Then have "Egyptian Maybe some Gold in the coffin" written on your tombstone. In a thousand years They'll dig you up in the name of science.
1) First, reliably forecast the weather next Tuesday. Only then attempt to tell me what the temperature will be a hundred years hence.
2) First, avert one minor tornado away from a trailer park. Only then attempt to control the glacial epochs.
Baby steps. That's how to earn credibility.
2) First, avert one minor tornado away from a trailer park. Only then attempt to control the glacial epochs.
Baby steps. That's how to earn credibility.
workhorse_01
Well-Known Member
I'll go along with that.
Now, ain't that the truth?
skychaser
Well-Known Member
Global warming 'pause' may last for 20 more years and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html
Study says warmer temperatures are largely due to natural 300-year cycles
Actual increase in last 17 years lower than almost every prediction
Scientists likened continuing pause to a Mexican wave in a stadium
By David Rose
PUBLISHED: 19:32 EST, 2 November 2013 | UPDATED: 20:00 EST, 2 November 2013
The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research.
A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.
Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.
The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality.
The graph shown, based on a version published by Dr Ed Hawkins of Reading University on his blog, Climate Lab Book, reveals that actual temperatures are now below the predictions made by almost all the 138 models on which the IPCC relies.
The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.
According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’.
Curry and Wyatt say they have identified a climatic ‘stadium wave’ – the phenomenon known in Britain as a Mexican wave, in which the crowd at a stadium stand and sit so that a wave seems to circle the audience.
In similar fashion, a number of cycles in the temperature of air and oceans, and the level of Arctic ice, take place across the Northern hemisphere over decades. Curry and Wyatt say there is evidence of this going back at least 300 years.
According to Curry and Wyatt, the theory may explain both the warming pause and why the computer models did not forecast it.
It also means that a large proportion of the warming that did occur in the years before the pause was due not to greenhouse gas emissions, but to the same cyclical wave.
‘The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,’ said Wyatt. This is in sharp contrast with the IPCC’s report, which predicts warming of between 0.3 and 0.7C by 2035.
Wyatt added: ‘The stadium wave forecasts that sea ice will recover from its recent minimum.’ The record low seen in 2012, followed by the large increase in 2013, is consistent with the theory, she said.
Even IPCC report co-authors such as Dr Hawkins admit some of the models are ‘too hot’.
He said: ‘The upper end of the latest climate model projections is inconsistent’ with observed temperatures, though he added even the lower predictions could have ‘negative impacts’ if true.
But if the pause lasted another ten years, and there were no large volcanic eruptions, ‘then global surface temperatures would be outside the IPCC’s indicative likely range’.
Professor Curry went much further. ‘The growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations raises the prospect that climate models are inadequate in fundamental ways,’ she said.
If the pause continued, this would suggest that the models were not ‘fit for purpose’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html
Study says warmer temperatures are largely due to natural 300-year cycles
Actual increase in last 17 years lower than almost every prediction
Scientists likened continuing pause to a Mexican wave in a stadium
By David Rose
PUBLISHED: 19:32 EST, 2 November 2013 | UPDATED: 20:00 EST, 2 November 2013
The 17-year pause in global warming is likely to last into the 2030s and the Arctic sea ice has already started to recover, according to new research.
A paper in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics – by Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Dr Marcia Wyatt – amounts to a stunning challenge to climate science orthodoxy.
Not only does it explain the unexpected pause, it suggests that the scientific majority – whose views are represented by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – have underestimated the role of natural cycles and exaggerated that of greenhouse gases.
The research comes amid mounting evidence that the computer models on which the IPCC based the gloomy forecasts of a rapidly warming planet in its latest report, published in September, are diverging widely from reality.
The graph shown, based on a version published by Dr Ed Hawkins of Reading University on his blog, Climate Lab Book, reveals that actual temperatures are now below the predictions made by almost all the 138 models on which the IPCC relies.
The pause means there has been no statistically significant increase in world average surface temperatures since the beginning of 1997, despite the models’ projection of a steeply rising trend.
According to Dr Hawkins, the divergence is now so great that the world’s climate is cooler than what the models collectively predicted with ‘five to 95 per cent certainty’.
Curry and Wyatt say they have identified a climatic ‘stadium wave’ – the phenomenon known in Britain as a Mexican wave, in which the crowd at a stadium stand and sit so that a wave seems to circle the audience.
In similar fashion, a number of cycles in the temperature of air and oceans, and the level of Arctic ice, take place across the Northern hemisphere over decades. Curry and Wyatt say there is evidence of this going back at least 300 years.
According to Curry and Wyatt, the theory may explain both the warming pause and why the computer models did not forecast it.
It also means that a large proportion of the warming that did occur in the years before the pause was due not to greenhouse gas emissions, but to the same cyclical wave.
‘The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s,’ said Wyatt. This is in sharp contrast with the IPCC’s report, which predicts warming of between 0.3 and 0.7C by 2035.
Wyatt added: ‘The stadium wave forecasts that sea ice will recover from its recent minimum.’ The record low seen in 2012, followed by the large increase in 2013, is consistent with the theory, she said.
Even IPCC report co-authors such as Dr Hawkins admit some of the models are ‘too hot’.
He said: ‘The upper end of the latest climate model projections is inconsistent’ with observed temperatures, though he added even the lower predictions could have ‘negative impacts’ if true.
But if the pause lasted another ten years, and there were no large volcanic eruptions, ‘then global surface temperatures would be outside the IPCC’s indicative likely range’.
Professor Curry went much further. ‘The growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations raises the prospect that climate models are inadequate in fundamental ways,’ she said.
If the pause continued, this would suggest that the models were not ‘fit for purpose’.
Attachments
FALaholic
Well-Known Member
Sky. I never wanted to believe it. Being that I'm a coastal resident, I'm seeing it first hand.
First it was Miami, now we are getting areas of my city flooding, that have never flooded before.
The concern that I've been seeing is that I've been seeing the water in the intercoastal steadily staying around 1', just below the sea wall. This has me really worried as the hurricanes have always cause the water to come over the seawall. Now with water heights this high, all we'd need is a hurricane to flood 100s of coastal homes.
First it was Miami, now we are getting areas of my city flooding, that have never flooded before.
The concern that I've been seeing is that I've been seeing the water in the intercoastal steadily staying around 1', just below the sea wall. This has me really worried as the hurricanes have always cause the water to come over the seawall. Now with water heights this high, all we'd need is a hurricane to flood 100s of coastal homes.
Entire communities in Japan are now under water a result of an earthquake in 2011. Some elevations dropped as much as 10 feet. I know Florida hasn't experienced an earthquake, but there are many reasons that cause water levels to rise.
Just curious...what was the water level compared to the top of the seawall before global warming?
Just curious...what was the water level compared to the top of the seawall before global warming?
leverhead
Well-Known Member
Subsidence is a big problem in and around Houston, in some places 2" a year. Farther East, the ground is rising.
Last year, IPCC scientists finally agreed on how much the seas have risen in the last 50 years: 3/8".
Yepper. Three eighths inch.
Way back in the Dark Ages, at a time when scientists were telling us that a new ICE AGE was going to be the apocalypse, I went to college in Stockton CA. The town was surrounded by rich farm land. All farms along the river side had to be protected by twenty foot levees. The reason was simple: All these farms were once peat bogs. As soon as the bogs get drained and the trees cut off, then the exposed peat begins to oxydize. Basically, peat burns without flame. About half an inch a year. Between that and peat dust blowing everywhere whenever they plowed, why, the farms just sank. Same thing in San Jose. The wee town where I built my schooner, there was a levee alongside the Guadalupe River. I could stand on the levee and look down at the roof of an old two story building that had once been a yacht club. San Jose on average was like 15' or 20' below sea level.
What I am getting at is, it's not that the sea is rising in Floridita; it's that the land is burning. You have a limestone shelf with a peat bog on top. Anywhere you drain swamp it will begin to disappear.
You can't blame oil for everything.
What I am getting at is, it's not that the sea is rising in Floridita; it's that the land is burning. You have a limestone shelf with a peat bog on top. Anywhere you drain swamp it will begin to disappear.
You can't blame oil for everything.
winston-smoker
Well-Known Member
Next, they'll tell us that there will be a global ice age because of global warming!
Another thing, assuming global temperatures are rising, who's to say that it is happening primarily because of human activity (i.e., burning fossil fuels)? A single large volcanic eruption puts far more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Global temperatures do fluctuate over time because of natural reasons. For example, global temperatures in the thirteenth century were warmer than they are now. Then global cooling occurred in the fourteenth century. It was the warmer temperatures that facilitated the Norse colonization of Greenland, and it was global cooling in the fourteenth century which effectively killed off the colony by 1400. There's archaeological evidence that the diet of the Norse in Greenland, over the course of the fourteenth century, progressively became more based on fish, and less on cereals and vegetables, as global temperatures dropped. So what is the reason for higher global temperatures before the fourteenth century? It certainly wasn't because of industrialization! I think that some people greatly, and perhaps deliberately, underestimate the complexity of global climate.
Another thing, assuming global temperatures are rising, who's to say that it is happening primarily because of human activity (i.e., burning fossil fuels)? A single large volcanic eruption puts far more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Global temperatures do fluctuate over time because of natural reasons. For example, global temperatures in the thirteenth century were warmer than they are now. Then global cooling occurred in the fourteenth century. It was the warmer temperatures that facilitated the Norse colonization of Greenland, and it was global cooling in the fourteenth century which effectively killed off the colony by 1400. There's archaeological evidence that the diet of the Norse in Greenland, over the course of the fourteenth century, progressively became more based on fish, and less on cereals and vegetables, as global temperatures dropped. So what is the reason for higher global temperatures before the fourteenth century? It certainly wasn't because of industrialization! I think that some people greatly, and perhaps deliberately, underestimate the complexity of global climate.
Last edited:
Ben Brand
Well-Known Member
We`re on the other side off the world and it effects us also. Today in Musina on the Zimbabwe border it is 41 Deg Celcius (106 F), here in Vaalwater where I live and plant my few tobacco plants it`s 36 Deg C (97 F) The thing that worries me is all the cumulus clouds forming, sure tonight we will get a massive hail storm again. Luckily my tobacco not planted yet.
World Climate Data for January 2014.
Bob
NOAA 20Feb2014 said:
Bob
Markw
Well-Known Member
I don't be-leave in global warming. As far as I am concerned it is a load of crap . As you are aware and as you have said in another thread you love history, All people need to do is look back at history over hundreds of years, and you can see it. It is only what they wan't to educate us !!!!
Boboro
Well-Known Member
We almost broke an all time record low here in Jan. An it was the coldest in 20 years.
Rickey60
Well-Known Member
Believe me that's COLD for Mississippi. I'm over it. Do you hear me, I'm over it. Spring were art thou.
Boboro
Well-Known Member
I declard it Spring yesterday!
- Status
