More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

Brian Stewart
Supporter
As I said in Post #1452 – go to the original source. The claim that there has been no warming for the past 18 years is absolute BS, and largely relies on the fact that 1997/1998 was an incredibly warm year, helped by a very significant El Nino event, the strongest of the 20th century. Ten of the warmest years since temperature recordings have been kept have all occurred since the year 1997. 2014 was one of those 10 warmest years, even beating 1998, and that was without the help of an El Nino event.

The data show, with 100% certainty, that the decade 2000 – 2010 was warmer than 1990 – 2000. In fact each decade for the past 40 years has been measurably warmer than each preceding decade. The data are out there. Go to NOAA, to NASA, to HadCRUT, they’re all readily available, and plot them for yourselves. Agreed, surface temperatures are not climbing as quickly as they were prior to 2000, but they are still climbing. Sea subsurface temperatures, and deep ocean temperatures on the other hand, have shown no pause whatsoever, and both have continued to climb at a pretty much undiminished rate since 1970.

As Bob P correctly points out, it’s not about individual years – it’s about long term trends, and I’m sorry guys, but that remains upwards for now. If this year and the next, and the next are cooler and the trend levels out or reverses, I’ll be the first to admit I’m wrong, but I can’t see a trend reversal happening in my lifetime.

If you are really interested, this essay gives a reasonable history of the research into climate change, with citations. It's quite a long read, but gives a pretty much step by step account of how we got to where we are now in climate research, with comments on both pro and anti stances.

The Modern Temperature Trend
 
The original source for land temp indices is the GHCN. Those you mention are derived via selection, homogenisation and adjustment amongst other procedures; they are not original.
The other sources you do not mention are UAH and RSS - both satellite temp sensor systems that avoid many of the inherent biases of land based temperature measurement. Both show a much longer zero trend in global temps than their land based equivalents.
There are no direct measurements of deep sea temperatures that can give any real idea of trend; they are far too few, infrequent and imprecise. Changes in deep sea temps (more accurately heat content) are inferred from the Grace satellite, which has 'issues'. It's just a WAG.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Questions that come to mind are:

(1)Do you believe the science (in general or specific to this discussion) is more accurate now than it was 40 or 100 years ago? yes or no.

(2)Do you believe that 3% of scientific community's opinion outweight the opposite opinions of 90% of the same community? yes or no

Seriously, no deflecting of the question to restate your beliefs.

(1) In theory, yes. In practice, no. (E.g.: bogus "facts"/predictions based on "today's science" mentioned B4.)

(2) I'm not at all convinced your 'percentage' figures are anywhere near accurate, but, for the moment, let's say they are. Given that: maybe 3% of the world's population back in the time of Columbus believed the Earth was round. Were they wrong?

But, like I said; 'not gunna sit here rehashing. Anyone who wants to wade thru this whole thread (may God help 'em) can make up his/her own mind.

:chug:
 

Brian Stewart
Supporter
The original source for land temp indices is the GHCN. ...UAH..., ...RSS...
Changes in deep sea temps (more accurately heat content) are inferred from the Grace satellite, which has 'issues'. It's just a WAG.

GHCN is a NOAA database. UAH is very controversial due to differences in temp at the surface and at altitude. The dataset has been subject to significant corrections through the 1990s and 2000s. RSS suffers from the same limitations. However, both datasets show warming since 1998. Ocean heat content is measured by a number of different methods, including direct measurement by the ARGO buoy array since 2000, which is yielding much more conclusive data than GRACE.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Well, I'm with you Larry 49 pages of thread with both sides of the argument I have made my mind up and it was the same on page one. People will believe what they want to despite failed computer models, despite so called scientists cooking the books etc etc.
I think it was Al who said follow the money! This will go down as the biggest con since the Millenium Bug. Last night I watched a breathless TV presenter saying that Queenslands November was the hottest for over 100 years.. And implying it was because of global warming and carbon dioxide. WTF that means there was an even hotter November in Queensland 100 years ago when there were hardly any cars, must have been all the Kangaroos farting. Stupid git.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Ocean heat content is measured by a number of different methods, including direct measurement by the ARGO buoy array since 2000, which is yielding much more conclusive data than GRACE.

:squint:

Most probably planted right next to, or darned close to, or right 'down current' from active undersea volcanoes, I'd wager.

Okay. I AM 'DUNN' with this for a month or so now. :sleeping:
 

Brian Stewart
Supporter
That's an awful lot of undersea volcanoes Larry...
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2015-01-20 at 3.36.04 PM.jpg
    Screen shot 2015-01-20 at 3.36.04 PM.jpg
    583.9 KB · Views: 174
The argo buoys do not measure deep sea temps, they are limted to a depth of 2000 meters. The averge depth of the oceans is c.3800 m.
RSS ZERO trend:
 

Attachments

  • clip_image002_thumb.jpg
    clip_image002_thumb.jpg
    22.3 KB · Views: 159

Brian Stewart
Supporter
Deep ARGO floats are now being deployed that are able to go down to 6000 m. As I said before, RSS has severe limitations, but believe what you will.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
I think we should agree to disagree. No one will convince me that this isn't a con, started by Al Gore and perpetuated by the corrupt IPCC, Scientists saying what their Governments want to hear to protect their grants, and Governments jumping on the bandwagon to increase taxes
You won't convince me and I won't convince you warmists. Pay your climate change taxes with joy!
 

Brian Stewart
Supporter
Yep - spot on Pete. I don't think anyone who posts on here has changed their mind, and likely never will. Let's get back to talking about cars... and women...
 
I think I will sit on the fence in this debate as I am not qualified to pass judgement on the effects of human activity on the climate. What I do know is that human activity does need monitoring and that we do have a huge problem with regards to air quality. Like it or not a good proportion of the "wasted" money is towards understanding the effects of the shit we are pumping into the atmosphere so it cant all be bad.

Bob
 

Brian Stewart
Supporter
Yes, it does, if your tin foil hat is Texas sized.

Good grief. Do people actually believe that shit?

What is interesting Jeff, is that so much of it is demonstrably completely wrong, yet he still wants people to give him five bucks for sharing the misinformation. I bet Luongo is laughing all the way to the bank.
 
Back
Top