Kanonier Reichmann Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Here's an interesting little link to a story on the UN World Meteorological Organisation study on global temperatures. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/warmest-ever-year-says-un-weather-agency/story-e6frea73-1225992220950 It's going to be tough for the usual array of 'denyers' to argue with this quote from the linked article (my bolding added)... Self-proclaimed climate change 'sceptics' may still try to claim that global warming stopped in 1998, but they cannot explain away the fact that nine of the 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2000,'' said Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics (LSE). So, do we still think that there's no such thing as global warming and if we just bury our heads in the sand and keep saying it's not happenning it will simply go away? Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak_43 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Do you mean "Global Warming" or "Climate Change"? Oh and... Geneva, 20 January 2011 (WMO) – The year 2010 ranked as the warmest year on record, together with 2005 and 1998, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Data received by the WMO show no statistically significant difference between global temperatures in 2010, 2005 and 1998. "In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. The difference between the three years is less than the margin of uncertainty (± 0.09°C or ± 0.16°F) in comparing the data. These statistics are based on data sets maintained by the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit (HadCRU), the U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)." I haven't got a horse in this race, other than to say that there certainly isn't the concensus amongst the scientific community many would have you believe... For an alternative viewpoint you could read http://wattsupwiththat.com/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I haven't got a horse in this race, other than to say that there certainly isn't the concensus amongst the scientific community many would have you believe... Do you watch Fox by any chance : ) As for the site, it seems to gain support from the Times [mUrdoch], and get special treatment with Fox [Murdoch]. I have no doubt that some good work is done together with flim-flam to confuse the uissues. [tobacco industry]: http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/11/foxnews-wattsupwiththat-climatedepot-daily-mail-article-on-global-cooling-mojib-latif/ However overall the world may only get one shot at getting this right and I do not want to dally around doing nothing in the meantime. http://hot-topic.co.nz/2010-greenland-ice-sheet-melt-sets-new-record-2011-starts-warm/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet BTW the positive mention of shalegas at the watts site may not be unconnected with those poised to make lots of money from its exploitation. However, and despite me having a potential interest in shale gas, the damage to ground water by fracking etc is being downplayed heavily by the shale gas industry. Water quality for the locals is not high on their agendas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Curious how the "warming trend" crowd explains away ..let's see,for example.. 1. Mastodons on display at Smithsonian "found with grass in their mouth..." (in areas of the Arctic now under ice). 2.Their Own assertions, in the mid 1990s, that we were entering into a new ice age. That said, I am on the fence...not really a "denier" at all,despite the fact also that in my hometown here, we have had our 3 coldest winters since the 1950s, during the last 4 years, and none of our hottest summers,during that time. I am just saying there is alot of evidence on both sides, and a great many scientists on both sides as well,including nearly half of the worlds meteorologists (people who actually study this).Oh, and a standing challenge still is out there, from a world famous scientist, who has offered millions of dollars to anyone on the other side willing to publicly debate the issue. I do feel that we should be "green" even if it is not occurring, for the record. It just drives me crazy to see the outright hypocrisy of one side in this issue, and of course it goes without saying that the same people show that hypocrisy in nearly everything they do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 1. Given the range of mastodon existence it could easily be a period when the earth was not what it is like now in terms of land above and below water. Given the change in water levels and geography that has occurred in the last 50000 years of mankind it is worth bearing in mind the huge timespan of mastadons. "The American mastodon (Mammut americanum), the most recent member of the family, lived from about 3.7 million years ago until it became extinct about 10,000 years BCE. It is known from fossils found ranging from present-day Alaska and New England in the north, to Florida, southern California, and as far south as Honduras.[6] The American mastodon resembled a woolly mammoth in appearance, with a thick coat of shaggy hair.[7] It had tusks that sometimes exceeded five meters in length; they curved upwards, but less dramatically than those of the woolly mammoth.[5] Its main habitat was cold spruce woodlands, and it is believed to have browsed in herds.[8] They are generally reported as having disappeared from North America about 10,000 years ago,[9] as part of a mass extinction of most of the Pleistocene megafauna. Paleo-Indians entered the American continent and expanded to relatively large numbers 13,000 years ago,[10] and their hunting may have caused a gradual attrition of the mastodon population.[11][12]" Incidentally the Smithsonian is not listed in the Wikipedia article link as having a mastadon? 2. I always have felt that climate change was the correct expression for what is occurring. You say "they" - perhaps this may be the clue but move the decades a bit! http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm Taking an individual area is a tricky to draw conclusions : ) BTW you say a great number of scientists on both sides .. . Wikipedia does have lists, and extensive articles. I particularly liked this: The White House emphasis on adaptation was not well received however: "Despite conceding that our consumption of fossil fuels is causing serious damage and despite implying that current policy is inadequate, the Report fails to take the next step and recommend serious alternatives. Rather, it suggests that we simply need to accommodate to the coming changes. For example, reminiscent of former Interior Secretary Hodel's proposal that the government address the hole in the ozone layer by encouraging Americans to make better use of sunglasses, suntan lotion and broad-brimmed hats, the Report suggests that we can deal with heat-related health impacts by increased use of air-conditioning ... Far from proposing solutions to the climate change problem, the Administration has been adopting energy policies that would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. Notably, even as the Report identifies increased air conditioner use as one of the 'solutions' to climate change impacts, the Department of Energy has decided to roll back energy efficiency standards for air conditioners."[182] Letter from 11 State Attorneys General to George W. Bush. I would love it if nothing had to be done BUT safety first!. However regardless of climate change there is the problem of diminishing/more costly energy. So there , we have two reasons for greater energy efficiency, reduced atmospheric discharges by man, prolonging power whilst alternative power takes over. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__Yossarian0815[jby] Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Do you mean "Global Warming" or "Climate Change"? Oh and... Geneva, 20 January 2011 (WMO) – The year 2010 ranked as the warmest year on record, together with 2005 and 1998, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Data received by the WMO show no statistically significant difference between global temperatures in 2010, 2005 and 1998. "In 2010, global average temperature was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 1961-90 mean. This value is 0.01°C (0.02°F) above the nominal temperature in 2005, and 0.02°C (0.05°F) above 1998. The difference between the three years is less than the margin of uncertainty (± 0.09°C or ± 0.16°F) in comparing the data. These statistics are based on data sets maintained by the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit (HadCRU), the U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)." I haven't got a horse in this race, other than to say that there certainly isn't the concensus amongst the scientific community many would have you believe... For an alternative viewpoint you could read http://wattsupwiththat.com/ as a supplement read http://wottsupwiththat.com/ The global temperature signal is of course very noisy. If the question is whether there is a statistical trend from say 1998 to 2005, the answer is of course no. You need at least 20 years to see the (upward) trend. On the other hand you can say that 2010 is one of the hottest years. Doesn´t prove anything by itself of course, but it adds to the overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic global warming. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__Yossarian0815[jby] Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Curious how the "warming trend" crowd explains away ..let's see,for example.. 2.Their Own assertions, in the mid 1990s, that we were entering into a new ice age. The first IPCC asessment report (FAR) was in 1990. Whoever thought an ice age was imminent in the mid 1990s wasn´t well informed. The only ice age scare I know of was in the 1970s which (BTW) wasn´t in the scientific literature but in Newsweek ;O) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak_43 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Do you watch Fox by any chance : ) Nope, only for the comedy value in the past, Hannity and Colmes are very funny indeed, in the sense that they seem to believe they are shedding light on an issue when they discuss it... As for the site, it seems to gain support from the Times [mUrdoch], and get special treatment with Fox [Murdoch]. I have no doubt that some good work is done together with flim-flam to confuse the uissues. [tobacco industry]: http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/1...g-mojib-latif/ He's an ex-Fox weatherman isn't he? Hardly surprising then, that doesn't necessarily make his data inaccurate or incorrect. I believe in UK civil service parlance that's called "Playing the man and not the ball.." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Actually I am impressed with what he does, but, it is possible to admire Mussolini for locking up the mafia without necessarily agreeing with the overall intent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.