• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes Rose

livefree

Active member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
97
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Wacky articles filled with misinformation, lies and propaganda, written by ignorant retards and published in disreputable newspapers, seem to be like crack cocaine for the denier cultists. How many threads have they started on here now about the totally bogus article by David Rose, published in the Daily Mail, that claimed that the Met Office data showed that here has been no warming in the last 16 years. LOL. Rose has been busted for his lies many times in the past and he currently has no credibility whatsoever. Beyond that though is the plain and inescapable fact that the Met Office itself refuted Rose's lies about what their data actually says.

Here is the official Met Office press release - which, BTW, is a government press release, is not copyrighted, and is free to reproduce in full.

Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012

Met Office News Blog - the official blog of the Met Office news team
10/14/2012

An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here.

To address some of the points in the article published today:

Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here.

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:

Hi David,​

Here’s a response to your questions. I’ve kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.

Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.”

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

Q.2 “Second, tell me what this says about the models used by the IPCC and others which have predicted a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius per decade for the 21st century. I accept that there will always be periods when a rising gradient may be interrupted. But this flat period has now gone on for about the same time as the 1980 – 1996 warming.”

The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.

Q.3 “Finally, do these data suggest that factors other than CO2 – such as multi-decadal oceanic cycles – may exert a greater influence on climate than previously realised?”

We have limited observations on multi-decadal oceanic cycles but we have known for some time that they may act to slow down or accelerate the observed warming trend. In addition, we also know that changes in the surface temperature occur not just due to internal variability, but are also influenced by “external forcings”, such as changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions or aerosol emissions. Combined, several of these factors could account for some or all of the reduced warming trend seen over the last decade – but this is an area of ongoing research.


———–
The below graph which shows years ranked in order of global temperature was not included in the response to Mr Rose, but is useful in this context as it illustrates the point made above that eight of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade.

Graph showing years ranked in order of global temperature.
 

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

This is a phenomenon I've seen repeated countless times over the last 5-10 years: a new paper or data series or adjustment is published and the denier community immediately jumps on it, misinterpretting what it means and assigning it far more significance than it actually has in the big scheme of things. The blogosphere wildly overreacts to the initial overreaction, convincing itself that that this whole AGW hoax has FINALLY been dealt a death blow. And then, after some weeks or months, the scientific community finds time to calmly explain that no, that's not what it means, and don't get excited -- it doesn't really detract from AGW theory at all.

Rinse and repeat.
 

Penderyn

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
276
Location
UK, Cymru mostly.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

This is a phenomenon I've seen repeated countless times over the last 5-10 years: a new paper or data series or adjustment is published and the denier community immediately jumps on it, misinterpretting what it means and assigning it far more significance than it actually has in the big scheme of things. The blogosphere wildly overreacts to the initial overreaction, convincing itself that that this whole AGW hoax has FINALLY been dealt a death blow. And then, after some weeks or months, the scientific community finds time to calmly explain that no, that's not what it means, and don't get excited -- it doesn't really detract from AGW theory at all.

Rinse and repeat.
The other problems are that so many people think scientific conclusions are just opinions, like something someone thought up in a bar, rather than theories constantly subject to testing and peer review. The second big problem is that anyone loosely describable as a 'scientist' is held to be capable of commenting knowledgeably on any scientific subject whatever. If they would grasp that questions of climate are best referred to climatologists it would prevent a great deal of hot air, at least, from increasing the temperature.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
3,967
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

The other problems are that so many people think scientific conclusions are just opinions, like something someone thought up in a bar, rather than theories constantly subject to testing and peer review.
Until actual empirical evidence is ever produced of human culpability for current warming then it really is just a theory, and its one increasingly at odds with both current observation and the history of very recent paleoclimatic natural precedents.

The second big problem is that anyone loosely describable as a 'scientist' is held to be capable of commenting knowledgeably on any scientific subject whatever.
And some think even flute players are qualified to do so as long as they say what they want to hear. :lol:
 

Penderyn

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
276
Location
UK, Cymru mostly.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Until actual empirical evidence is ever produced of human culpability for current warming then it really is just a theory, and its one increasingly at odds with both current observation and the history of very recent paleoclimatic natural precedents.



And some think even flute players are qualified to do so as long as they say what they want to hear. :lol:
Which people who know anything about the matter agree with your first statement?
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
3,967
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Which people who know anything about the matter agree with your first statement?
Well there isnt a single climate scientist on Earth has ever produced such evidence and it has been the holy grail of climate science to find it. Dont take my word for it go look for yourself and you'll quickly find it doesnt exist . This whole hypothesis rests on worthless predictive computer modelling not empirical data and it always has done.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
32,351
Reaction score
6,840
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

This is a phenomenon I've seen repeated countless times over the last 5-10 years: a new paper or data series or adjustment is published and the denier community immediately jumps on it, misinterpretting what it means and assigning it far more significance than it actually has in the big scheme of things. The blogosphere wildly overreacts to the initial overreaction, convincing itself that that this whole AGW hoax has FINALLY been dealt a death blow. And then, after some weeks or months, the scientific community finds time to calmly explain that no, that's not what it means, and don't get excited -- it doesn't really detract from AGW theory at all.

Rinse and repeat.


Regardless of what anybody says, the actual data seems to indicate that the warming or cooling over the last ten years is hard to define.


http://images.debatepolitics.com/at...tp://images.debatepolitics.com/attach/jpg.gif
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
32,351
Reaction score
6,840
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

The other problems are that so many people think scientific conclusions are just opinions, like something someone thought up in a bar, rather than theories constantly subject to testing and peer review. The second big problem is that anyone loosely describable as a 'scientist' is held to be capable of commenting knowledgeably on any scientific subject whatever. If they would grasp that questions of climate are best referred to climatologists it would prevent a great deal of hot air, at least, from increasing the temperature.

And if the temperature in fact is not increasing, what then? If the temperature started to increase in 1600 and the CO2 did not start to increase until 150 years later, what then? If we have been warmer than today numerous times with no Anthropogenic forcings at all, what then?
 

livefree

Active member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
97
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Until actual empirical evidence is ever produced of human culpability for current warming then it really is just a theory, and its one increasingly at odds with both current observation and the history of very recent paleoclimatic natural precedents.
Nonsense. There's an enormous amount of "actual empirical evidence of human culpability for current warming" but you're too brainwashed to see it. Your overall lack of understanding of science is shown clearly by the way you use the word 'theory'. Both "current observation" and "recent paleoclimatic natural precedents" support the conclusions of the world scientific community and virtually all of the world's climate scientists regarding anthropogenic global warming/climate changes. You've been filled with worthless propaganda and misinformation by those with a financial stake in selling fossil fuels and you obviously have no frumping idea what you're talking about.



Well there isnt a single climate scientist on Earth has ever produced such evidence and it has been the holy grail of climate science to find it. Dont take my word for it go look for yourself and you'll quickly find it doesnt exist . This whole hypothesis rests on worthless predictive computer modelling not empirical data and it always has done.
More clueless rubish. Nothing you say is true.

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
 
Last edited:

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
3,967
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Nonsense. There's an enormous amount of "actual empirical evidence of human culpability for current warming" but you're too brainwashed to see it.
Great ! At last somebody has found the holy grail . Lets see it in published literature then ?

Your overall lack of understanding of science is shown clearly by the way you use the word 'theory'. Both "current observation" and "recent paleoclimatic natural precedents" support the conclusions of the world scientific community and virtually all of the world's climate scientists regarding anthropogenic global warming/climate changes.
I'm not interested in appeals to authority just on what can and cannot be proven,

You've been filled with worthless propaganda and misinformation by those with a financial stake in selling fossil fuels and you obviously have no frumping idea what you're talking about
For example ...... ?
 

livefree

Active member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
97
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Regardless of what anybody says, the actual data seems to indicate that the warming or cooling over the last ten years is hard to define.
It only seems that way to denier cultists who have been bamboozled by the fossil fuel industry propaganda and misinformation.

Here's the actual trend.

FR11_Figure8.jpg
Average of all five data sets (GISS, NCDC, HadCRU, UAH, and RSS) with the effects of ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions removed (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011)
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
3,967
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Last edited:

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
3,967
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

It only seems that way to denier cultists who have been bamboozled by the fossil fuel industry propaganda and misinformation.

Here's the actual trend.

View attachment 67138398
Average of all five data sets (GISS, NCDC, HadCRU, UAH, and RSS) with the effects of ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions removed (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011)
Nahh . Here is the 'actual' trend once you take the subjectively applied human element out of the 'adjustments'

 

livefree

Active member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
313
Reaction score
97
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Nahh . Here is the 'actual' trend once you take the subjectively applied human element out of the 'adjustments'

View attachment 67138400
The UAH satellite record of lower atmospheric temperatures has proven to be one of the least reliable of the temperature sets in use and it does not well reflect the full ground based global temperature record. Moreover your graph is unsourced so it's hard to know if it maybe has been tampered with by some denier cult blog. In any case, even your graph shows an upward trend.

Here's a good reflection of the actual global temperature trend.

NASA Finds 2011 Ninth-Warmest Year on Record

NASA

01.19.12
(government publication - not under copyright - free to reproduce in full)


While average global temperature will still fluctuate from year to year, scientists focus on the decadal trend. Nine of the 10 warmest years since 1880 have occurred since the year 2000, as the Earth has experienced sustained higher temperatures than in any decade during the 20th century. As greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, scientists expect the long-term temperature increase to continue as well. (Data source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory, Robert Simmon)

The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.

"We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting," said GISS Director James E. Hansen. "So we are continuing to see a trend toward higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Niña influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record."

The difference between 2011 and the warmest year in the GISS record (2010) is 0.22 degrees F (0.12 C). This underscores the emphasis scientists put on the long-term trend of global temperature rise. Because of the large natural variability of climate, scientists do not expect temperatures to rise consistently year after year. However, they do expect a continuing temperature rise over decades.

The first 11 years of the 21st century experienced notably higher temperatures compared to the middle and late 20th century, Hansen said. The only year from the 20th century in the top 10 warmest years on record is 1998.

Higher temperatures today are largely sustained by increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. These gases absorb infrared radiation emitted by Earth and release that energy into the atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape to space. As their atmospheric concentration has increased, the amount of energy "trapped" by these gases has led to higher temperatures.

The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, when the GISS global temperature record begins. By 1960, the average concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million. Today it exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating pace.

The temperature analysis produced at GISS is compiled from weather data from more than 1,000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperature and Antarctic research station measurements. A publicly available computer program is used to calculate the difference between surface temperature in a given month and the average temperature for the same place during 1951 to 1980. This three-decade period functions as a baseline for the analysis.

The resulting temperature record is very close to analyses by the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

Hansen said he expects record-breaking global average temperature in the next two to three years because solar activity is on the upswing and the next El Niño will increase tropical Pacific temperatures. The warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010, in a virtual tie.

"It's always dangerous to make predictions about El Niño, but it's safe to say we'll see one in the next three years," Hansen said. "It won't take a very strong El Niño to push temperatures above 2010."
 

Penderyn

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
276
Location
UK, Cymru mostly.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Well there isnt a single climate scientist on Earth has ever produced such evidence and it has been the holy grail of climate science to find it. Dont take my word for it go look for yourself and you'll quickly find it doesnt exist . This whole hypothesis rests on worthless predictive computer modelling not empirical data and it always has done.

And what serious research does your opinion rest on, please? Why are you more knowledgeable than people who devote their lives to studying the question?
 

Penderyn

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
1,618
Reaction score
276
Location
UK, Cymru mostly.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

And if the temperature in fact is not increasing, what then? If the temperature started to increase in 1600 and the CO2 did not start to increase until 150 years later, what then? If we have been warmer than today numerous times with no Anthropogenic forcings at all, what then?
Then it'll be muich worse very soon, as a result of human interference, obviously.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
32,351
Reaction score
6,840
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

It only seems that way to denier cultists who have been bamboozled by the fossil fuel industry propaganda and misinformation.

Here's the actual trend.

View attachment 67138398
Average of all five data sets (GISS, NCDC, HadCRU, UAH, and RSS) with the effects of ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions removed (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011)


The actual trend as interpreted by the agenda driven site from which you mined it. I find it interesting that these folks can remove certain effects and confidently assert that they are accurate in doing so and yet cannot model the future accurately even being aware of all of these effects and the causations and so on. Does their inability cause any erosion of your confidence in their ability?

The actual raw data from the folks who collect the actual raw data is show nothing that is really very conclusive over the last ten years. It is also important to note that the data does not exactly agree between collectors.

There are literally billions of years of climate history on this planet and we have scientists who are trying to determine what that history was.

Taking a slice of that history that is less than a sliver is hardly compelling.

Looking at what occurred over millions of years or even thousands of years is more helpful.

http://images.debatepolitics.com/at...tp://images.debatepolitics.com/attach/jpg.gif





http://images.debatepolitics.com/attach/jpg.gif



http://images.debatepolitics.com/attach/jpg.gif
 
Last edited:

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
32,351
Reaction score
6,840
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Then it'll be muich worse very soon, as a result of human interference, obviously.


And if human forcing has no impact at all?
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
26,907
Reaction score
9,541
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.

"We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting," said GISS Director James E. Hansen. "So we are continuing to see a trend toward higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Niña influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record."

The difference between 2011 and the warmest year in the GISS record (2010) is 0.22 degrees F (0.12 C). This underscores the emphasis scientists put on the long-term trend of global temperature rise. Because of the large natural variability of climate, scientists do not expect temperatures to rise consistently year after year. However, they do expect a continuing temperature rise over decades.

The first 11 years of the 21st century experienced notably higher temperatures compared to the middle and late 20th century, Hansen said. The only year from the 20th century in the top 10 warmest years on record is 1998.

Higher temperatures today are largely sustained by increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. These gases absorb infrared radiation emitted by Earth and release that energy into the atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape to space. As their atmospheric concentration has increased, the amount of energy "trapped" by these gases has led to higher temperatures.

The carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was about 285 parts per million in 1880, when the GISS global temperature record begins. By 1960, the average concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million. Today it exceeds 390 parts per million and continues to rise at an accelerating pace.

The temperature analysis produced at GISS is compiled from weather data from more than 1,000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperature and Antarctic research station measurements. A publicly available computer program is used to calculate the difference between surface temperature in a given month and the average temperature for the same place during 1951 to 1980. This three-decade period functions as a baseline for the analysis.

The resulting temperature record is very close to analyses by the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

Hansen said he expects record-breaking global average temperature in the next two to three years because solar activity is on the upswing and the next El Niño will increase tropical Pacific temperatures. The warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010, in a virtual tie.

"It's always dangerous to make predictions about El Niño, but it's safe to say we'll see one in the next three years," Hansen said. "It won't take a very strong El Niño to push temperatures above 2010."[/SIZE][/B]
There is not much question that the earth is warming, we are, and have been coming out of an ice age.
Hanson's quote "We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting,"
This part is questionable, we know for the wavelengths measured, but new research
shows that thunderstorms emit gamma rays, I do not think they were looking there!

The whole Co2 model is on thin ice, lets look at the statement.
"Higher temperatures today are largely sustained by increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.
These gases absorb infrared radiation emitted by Earth and release that energy into the atmosphere rather than allowing it to escape to space.
As their atmospheric concentration has increased, the amount of energy "trapped" by these gases has led to higher temperatures."
The mechanism to allow for the feedback of Co2 has not been proven.
Co2 does absorb optical energy(poorly but it does), so what does it do with the energy?
An excited atomic state is very unstable and can only sustain itself for milliseconds, it then spontaneously decays and emits a photon.
The photon is emitted in a RANDOM direction, this means the probability of it pointing to the sky is greater than pointing elsewhere.
All atoms work the same, absorb, and re-emit.
The real issue is the Human involvement, and is it related?

My whole point is the link to Co2 and the feedback related have not been proven.
 
Last edited:

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
3,967
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

The UAH satellite record of lower atmospheric temperatures has proven to be one of the least reliable of the temperature sets in use and it does not well reflect the full ground based global temperature record. Moreover your graph is unsourced so it's hard to know if it maybe has been tampered with by some denier cult blog. In any case, even your graph shows an upward trend.
That is one of the biggest crocks I've heard. The UAH record relies on no less than 15 satellites for its global data. Its also not party to multiple human 'adjustments' made to the ground records the raw data for which has either been lost or destroyed in many instances. How many times have ground stations been moved around too and all so they can get the data bent to fit the hypothesis. NASA is heavily reliant on GISS for much of its data too and that means Jim Hansens modelling shop gets to fiddle with it first. Here is what happens once it does.

Temperature1979-2009.jpg
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,158
Reaction score
32,343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Well there isnt a single climate scientist on Earth has ever produced such evidence and it has been the holy grail of climate science to find it. Dont take my word for it go look for yourself and you'll quickly find it doesnt exist . This whole hypothesis rests on worthless predictive computer modelling not empirical data and it always has done.
There's no holy grail because science doesn't work like that.
And no, the entirety of climate science does not rest on computer models, the models aren't "predictive" in the way you're using it, and they aren't even wrong in the way you think they are. There's tons of empirical data. You can bury your head in the sand all you like, it doesn't make the data go away.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
32,351
Reaction score
6,840
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

That is one of the biggest crocks I've heard. The UAH record relies on no less than 15 satellites for its global data. Its also not party to multiple human 'adjustments' made to the ground records the raw data for which has either been lost or destroyed in many instances. How many times have ground stations been moved around too and all so they can get the data bent to fit the hypothesis. NASA is heavily reliant on GISS for much of its data too and that means Jim Hansens modelling shop gets to fiddle with it first. Here is what happens once it does.

View attachment 67138420


I am always amazed by people who think that the ground station data is reliably accurate. It is taken first from various stations that may or may not be in complete 100% synchronicity.

Then, for areas of the globe that are not inhabited, the nearest stations' data is extended and adjusted to comply with whatever the modeler who is collecting the data thinks the data should say.

Once all of the data has been adjusted to the satisfaction of the modelers collecting the data, the results are compared to the satellite records, the past data and the general trends and the overall data's conclusions are adjusted to match what it should say.

So the data is averaged and smoothed and adjusted before the tabulation which is averaged, smoothed and adjusted and the overall record is then averaged, smoothed and adjusted.

The satellite data pretty much is what it is and is taken virtually instantaneously.

Accurate instrument temperature data started being collected at the time of the Satellite age.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,158
Reaction score
32,343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

I am always amazed by people who think that the ground station data is reliably accurate. It is taken first from various stations that may or may not be in complete 100% synchronicity.

Then, for areas of the globe that are not inhabited, the nearest stations' data is extended and adjusted to comply with whatever the modeler who is collecting the data thinks the data should say.

Once all of the data has been adjusted to the satisfaction of the modelers collecting the data, the results are compared to the satellite records, the past data and the general trends and the overall data's conclusions are adjusted to match what it should say.

So the data is averaged and smoothed and adjusted before the tabulation which is averaged, smoothed and adjusted and the overall record is then averaged, smoothed and adjusted.

The satellite data pretty much is what it is and is taken virtually instantaneously.

Accurate instrument temperature data started being collected at the time of the Satellite age.
And the satellite data agrees near-perfectly with the surface data.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
3,967
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

And the satellite data agrees near-perfectly with the surface data.
Graph reading is clearly not your forte then :lol:
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,488
Reaction score
3,967
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

The satellite data pretty much is what it is and is taken virtually instantaneously.

Accurate instrument temperature data started being collected at the time of the Satellite age.
Did you note on my graph how the discrepancy between UAH and GISS went from being around 0.2C in 1981 (almost certainly due to primarily UHI effects) to 0.45C post Hansenization in 2010 ?

Here is doubtless why.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ruse-the-goddard-institute-for-space-studies/

skeptic_cartoon.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom