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

[livefree]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

And if human forcing has no impact at all?

And if cows could jump over the moon?

And if pigs could fly?

And if your brain wasn't the size of a walnut?

Of course, we live in the real world, so.......

 

[flogger]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

And if cows could jump over the moon?

And if pigs could fly?

And if your brain wasn't the size of a walnut?

Of course, we live in the real world, so.......

You might not want to hear this but the plain fact is that no human influence whatsoever has ever been empirically (important word) discerned from the noise of natural background variability. Why ? Because we do not know the climate sensitivity of CO2 amongst the mass of other major variables like clouds and water vapour interactions that we can still only guess at. Only arbitrarily assigned exaggerated values inputted into subjective modelling of what amounts to 97% + of the entire greenhouse gas envelope can make it all seem so scarey. Ultimately though its just a series of guesses that can be made to get whatever result its political paymasters want.

 

[livefree]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

There is not much question that the earth is warming, we are, and have been coming out of an ice age.

If you start off with a blatant falsehood, the rest of your post is sure to be pure drivel. And it is.

The Earth came out of the last period of glaciation about 10,000 years ago. We are not "still coming out" of it. The Earth is currently in an interglacial period called the Holocene.

Last glacial period
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago.[1] During this period there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat. The maximum extent of glaciation was approximately 22,000 years ago.

Holocene
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Holocene is a geological epoch which began at the end of the Pleistocene[1] (around 12,000 14C years ago) and continues to the present. It has been identified with the current warm period, known as MIS 1 and based on that past evidence, can be considered an interglacial in the current 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!

Hansen's statement is not "questionable" at all. It is based on scientific measurements and accurately reflects the reality of the Earth's energy balance. Thunderstorm generated gamma rays do not significantly affect this energy balance. The Earth is still taking in more solar energy than it is emitting back to space which means that the Earth is getting hotter, a fact that is confirmed by instrumental measurements and is called 'global warming'.

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.

Repeating the braindead myths of your denier cult does not make them any less ridiculously wrong. The greenhouse gas properties of CO2 have been known and studied for several centuries and they are not in doubt.

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.

A CO2 molecule in the atmosphere intercepts some infrared energy traveling outward and absorbs that energy. The molecule re-emits an infrared photon and also passes some energy to neighboring gas molecules through increased molecular vibration. The atmosphere is warmed and about half of the infrared photons go back towards the Earth, also increasing the heat content. This has been scientifically verified.

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.

Humans have, through widespread deforestation and the burning of massive quantities of fossil fuels, managed to raise the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide by about 40% (so far) over the pre-industrial levels. That is the "human involvement" right there and it is not in doubt. The heat-trapping, greenhouse gas effects of increased CO2 are well established scientific facts that have indeed been "proven" to be scientifically accurate.

Your "whole point" seems to be that you're a clueless and very ignorant bamboozled dupe of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.

 

[flogger]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Your "whole point" seems to be that you're a clueless and very ignorant bamboozled dupe of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign

No the 'whole point' is why would anyone now choose to respond to you at all after a deliberately inflammatory statement like that especially after Longview's dispassionate and considered post ? :roll:

 

[Muhammed]

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.

Look who's talking. You cite the climategate fraudsters.

 

[waas]

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.

There's been a substantial amount of evidence suggest GCC's validity, but, as with anything, faux science funded by big business will come and try to counter it.

That's why I tend to avoid this part of the forum - it's just mindless trading of data. What we really need to focus on is the potential ramifications of any given course of action, not limited new data. Yes, we're given a lot from this data, but merely throwing it back and forth without filling in the gaps of these debates is why this sub-forum is so lacking.

 

[flogger]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

There's been a substantial amount of evidence suggest GCC's validity, but, as with anything, faux science funded by big business will come and try to counter it.

There either is genuine science or thier isnt. Theres big business and big government on both sides of this agenda. I try and steer clear of both when attempting to find validation for this AGW premise one way or the other. If the theory fits the science and the evidence I'll buy it if it doesnt I wont. Ultimately its no more complicated than that for me. As a non American I do find the endless and lazy US centric political smearing and points scoring/playing to the gallery nonsense pervading this issue wearisome in the extreme here though and this has definately gotten a lot worse of late sadly

 

[longview]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Hansen's statement is not "questionable" at all. It is based on scientific measurements and accurately reflects the reality of the Earth's energy balance. Thunderstorm generated gamma rays do not significantly affect this energy balance. The Earth is still taking in more solar energy than it is emitting back to space which means that the Earth is getting hotter, a fact that is confirmed by instrumental measurements and is called 'global warming'.

The devil is in the details, they have looked for energy balance where they think it will occur. The idea that each gamma photon would take the place of 8,000,000 IR photons should
make someone ask what is that supertanker doing on the freeway. FYI Co2 10.6 micron is about .12 eV and Gamma ranges between 100 KeV and 10 MeV.
The earth is getting warmer,(something you questioned above.) The question is, is the warming related to Co2 or some other human activity, or is this warming part of a natural cycle.
Because we do not know what the normal cycle is, it becomes difficult to establish abnormal.

. The greenhouse gas properties of CO2 have been known and studied for several centuries and they are not in doubt.

Actually the quantum properties of Co2 have only been understood for about one century, and well understood for maybe 50 years (Patel 1964).
The mechanisms which would allow Co2 to have a positive feedback rather than a negative feedback, are not established.
Co2 is not a good optical absorber, the best path to excite Co2 is vibrational(yes Physical contact) with nitrogen.

CO2 molecule in the atmosphere intercepts some infrared energy traveling outward and absorbs that energy. The molecule re-emits an infrared photon and also passes some energy to neighboring gas molecules through increased molecular vibration. The atmosphere is warmed and about half of the infrared photons go back towards the Earth, also increasing the heat content. This has been verified scientifically.

This is the part of the theory that has not been tested, the transfer of the energy to a molecule to be named later.
If it has been verified scientifically, we should know this molecule's name.

Humans have, through widespread deforestation and the burning of massive quantities of fossil fuels, managed to raise the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide by about 40% (so far) over the pre-industrial levels. That is the "human involvement" right there and it is not in doubt. The heat-trapping, greenhouse gas effects of increased CO2 are well established scientific facts that have indeed been "proven" to be scientifically accurate.

Humans have burned a lot of hydrocarbons, and to our shame destroyed large amounts of forest, and Co2 levels are up.
The fundamental idea that these human events are tied to the current warming, is what has not been proven.

Your "whole point" seems to be that you're a clueless and very ignorant bamboozled dupe of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.

No I am just a science geek, who likes to see the numbers add up, so far they do not.

 

[livefree]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

You might not want to hear this but the plain fact is that no human influence whatsoever has ever been empirically (important word) discerned from the noise of natural background variability. Why ? Because we do not know the climate sensitivity of CO2 amongst the mass of other major variables like clouds and water vapour interactions that we can still only guess at. Only arbitrarily assigned exaggerated values inputted into subjective modelling of what amounts to 97% + of the entire greenhouse gas envelope can make it all seem so scarey. Ultimately though its just a series of guesses that can be made to get whatever result its political paymasters want.

Your denier cult myths are ludicrous and based only on the ignorance and stupidity of you deluded denier cultists.

In reality the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is so overwhelming that every scientific society, National Academy of Science and all other major scientific organizations in the world specifically support the validity of AGW.

For example:

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, as the world's largest general scientific society, adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.​

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.​

In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.​

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability. Technological, economic, and policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of future impacts of climate change. Science-based decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. National and international policy discussions should include consideration of the best ways to both adapt to and mitigate climate change. Mitigation will reduce the amount of future climate change and the risk of impacts that are potentially large and dangerous. At the same time, some continued climate change is inevitable, and policy responses should include adaptation to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.​

 

[shlunka]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Well if that last post doesn't end this debate on the existence of global warming, then the argument will be perpetual. Even if there's a possibility of the non-existence of anthropogenic contributions to global warming, the old saying "Better safe than sorry" comes to mind.

 

[flogger]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Your denier cult myths are ludicrous and based only on the ignorance and stupidity of you deluded denier cultists.

In reality the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is so overwhelming that every scientific society, National Academy of Science and all other major scientific organizations in the world specifically support the validity of AGW.

So like I said no empirical evidence whatsoever just more predictable appeals to authority ... ho hum

Like Longview said . How can we check if the sums add up ? We cannot find an answer if we dont know what the correct number and value of the inputs involved are in the first place yet these constructs can allegedly predict the future 100 years down the line irrespective of that. Sorry but I dont buy it especially given how at odds these models already are with real world observations in just the short duration they have already tried to predict for :roll:

Given how totally reliant this agenda is on climate models for its predictions of calamity it would perhaps be a good idea to analyse why they are always so doomed to failure in considerably more detail by citing how they have continuously failed to date.

C3: Climate Models

 

[code1211]

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.

This occurs because the ground data is adjusted to fit.

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

And if cows could jump over the moon?

And if pigs could fly?

And if your brain wasn't the size of a walnut?

Of course, we live in the real world, so.......

Again, those who proclaim they support science present no data whatsoever and and resort to the PeeWee Herman debating techniques.

Your mother, and I'm guessing nobody else, would be so proud!

 

[longview]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

And if cows could jump over the moon?

And if pigs could fly?

And if your brain wasn't the size of a walnut?

Of course, we live in the real world, so.......

You lost the discussion when you resorted to insults, instead of logic and science.
Should we change our energy uses and sources? yes, but not because of the people crying wolf.

There are limitations in our future to worry about, but Co2 levels is not on the list.
If people really want to improve the world, invent something that uses less energy, and improves lifestyle.
Agricultural Development & Technology
BioLite - BioLite Stove
People change because it is better and easier for them to do so.
If the path to energy independence were the easy choice to make, the road would get crowded.

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

If you start off with a blatant falsehood, the rest of your post is sure to be pure drivel. And it is.

The Earth came out of the last period of glaciation about 10,000 years ago. We are not "still coming out" of it. The Earth is currently in an interglacial period called the Holocene.

Last glacial period
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago.[1] During this period there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat. The maximum extent of glaciation was approximately 22,000 years ago.

Holocene
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Holocene is a geological epoch which began at the end of the Pleistocene[1] (around 12,000 14C years ago) and continues to the present. It has been identified with the current warm period, known as MIS 1 and based on that past evidence, can be considered an interglacial in the current ice age.

Hansen's statement is not "questionable" at all. It is based on scientific measurements and accurately reflects the reality of the Earth's energy balance. Thunderstorm generated gamma rays do not significantly affect this energy balance. The Earth is still taking in more solar energy than it is emitting back to space which means that the Earth is getting hotter, a fact that is confirmed by instrumental measurements and is called 'global warming'.






Repeating the braindead myths of your denier cult does not make them any less ridiculously wrong. The greenhouse gas properties of CO2 have been known and studied for several centuries and they are not in doubt.









A CO2 molecule in the atmosphere intercepts some infrared energy traveling outward and absorbs that energy. The molecule re-emits an infrared photon and also passes some energy to neighboring gas molecules through increased molecular vibration. The atmosphere is warmed and about half of the infrared photons go back towards the Earth, also increasing the heat content. This has been scientifically verified.







Humans have, through widespread deforestation and the burning of massive quantities of fossil fuels, managed to raise the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide by about 40% (so far) over the pre-industrial levels. That is the "human involvement" right there and it is not in doubt. The heat-trapping, greenhouse gas effects of increased CO2 are well established scientific facts that have indeed been "proven" to be scientifically accurate.

Your "whole point" seems to be that you're a clueless and very ignorant bamboozled dupe of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.

So many words and so little knowledge.

The impact on climate of CO2 has a constantly diminishing effect on on incremental basis.

The first 20 ppm of CO2 probably had a forcing impact of about 6 degrees centigrade. Every incremental increase following that level had a logarithmically reducing impact. The rise of 20 ppm from 360 to 380 ppm had an impact to increase the climates temperature by about 0.012 degrees centigrade. The next 20 ppm from 380 to 400 will have the impact of 0.011 degrees centigrade.

The impact of the increase of the ppm of CO2 since it was at the 280 level in 1850 has been about 0.753 degrees Centigrade.

You should dial your hysteria back about 120 clicks.

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/hoskins.pdf

<snip>
Of the ~1.24°C warming historically attributable to CO2 1850 -*‐ to date
CO2 0-*‐280 (280) ppmv equivalent to the first 1.1179 °C CO2 0-*‐400 (400) ppmv equivalent to a total of 1.1932 °C CO2 280-*‐400 (120) ppmv the extra CO2 emissions
occurring since 1850 equivalent only to 0.0753 °C
And the temperature effect of continuing rises in CO2 concentration will continue to reduce marginally as CO2 concentrations increase.
In this century to 2100 Man-*‐made emissions from continuing Business as Usual gives an estimated increase:
at ~1.94ppmv/year x 90 = an extra 175 ppmv 175 x 0.000627 °C = ~+0.11°C.
<snip>

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Well if that last post doesn't end this debate on the existence of global warming, then the argument will be perpetual. Even if there's a possibility of the non-existence of anthropogenic contributions to global warming, the old saying "Better safe than sorry" comes to mind.

So what is the level of the problem that you recognize?

What should be the level of the response?

 

[Penderyn]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

And if human forcing has no impact at all?

Then clearly we don't exist: it is all a dream.

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Then clearly we don't exist: it is all a dream.

I just posted a paper that shows pretty conclusively that the impact of the increase of atmospheric CO2 on the temperature of the climate has been in the neighborhood of about 0.7 degrees since 1850.

The Green House effect of the incremental increase of CO2 is constantly decreasing as the ppm increases.

Here is another snipet from that paper:

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/hoskins.pdf

This estimate of the Worldwide Man-*‐made CO2 based temperature effect is equivalent to ~0.1°C per century. This level it is about ~20 millionths of any normal annual temperature variation at any particular location. So the Global Man-*‐made temperature effect is minuscule immeasurable and irrelevant.
Using simple proportions based on a total Greenhouse effect of 33°C
the total CO2 effect of 1.24°C for 390 ppmv
Man-*‐made Business as Usual emissions of 1.94 ppmv per year is thus
equivalent to warming of
Using this proportional calculation, continuing Business as Usual
for the next 90 years could result in a temperature increase of
= 0.00318°C/ppmv 0.00617°C/year ~+0.56°C till 2100

 

[flogger]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Then clearly we don't exist: it is all a dream.

I think where a lot of environmentalists have really lost the plot is expecting 7 Billion of us to have very little impact which is of course quite impossible however many compromises we make to our quality of life . Until they again start to view humanity as a part of the biosphere rather than some extraneous turd that has been defecated upon it they are going to find themselves increasingly marginalised in decades to come. I rather suspect we may even get an anti green backlash as thier increasingly rabid anti human agenda becomes ever clearer with the fullness of time.

 

[Penderyn]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

I think where a lot of environmentalists have really lost the plot is expecting 7 Billion of us to have very little impact which is of course quite impossible however many compromises we make to our quality of life . Until they again start to view humanity as a part of the biosphere rather than some extraneous blight that has been defecated upon it they are going to find themselves increasingly marginalised in decades to come. I rather suspect we may even get an anti green backlash as thier increasingly rabid anti human agenda becomes ever clearer with the fullness of time.

I shouldn't worry: we have no future, and you are just a dead man posting. Pity, but there it is: ignorance is far from bliss.

 

[flogger]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

I shouldn't worry: we have no future, and you are just a dead man posting. Pity, but there it is: ignorance is far from bliss.

We certainly have a future, but the demagogues leading the current environmentalist movement are keen to purge us of the original sin of industrialisation and thus make sure it will be for far fewer of us sadly.

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

I shouldn't worry: we have no future, and you are just a dead man posting. Pity, but there it is: ignorance is far from bliss.

The US was in a bad way environmentally several decades ago. China seems to have arrived at that point or close to it recently. If they are not there yet, they will be soon.

The US air and water is cleaner today than it has been probably since the Civil War.

Changes not only can be made, but are being made.

Some of the more recent responses are just a tad outside of the sane category.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

The US was in a bad way environmentally several decades ago. China seems to have arrived at that point or close to it recently. If they are not there yet, they will be soon.

The US air and water is cleaner today than it has been probably since the Civil War.

Changes not only can be made, but are being made.

Some of the more recent responses are just a tad outside of the sane category.

They will become fewer as you come to accept reality.

 

[code1211]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

They will become fewer as you come to accept reality.

Another golden nugget.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Global warming did not stop 16 years ago - Met Office confirms this and refutes R

Another golden nugget.

Dropped from a great height.