Global warming.

[Minimalist]

I expect that kind of edited shit from FOX News, Dig. Here is what he said about the 15 year period they trumpet.

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

I added up the increases in the supplied chart and for the years in question found a centigrade rise of 6.4 degrees. You'd know better than I what that means in fahrenheit. It seems like a lot since 1860 and doesn't include a lot of years in that span.

[Digit]

I'll reiterate what I have said before Min. I have no dispute with GW.
My dispute is with many of its supporters. The CO2 bit is too many eggs in one basket, a countryman of yours was denied a chance to speak at Copenhagen 'cos he was arguing that the Polar bear is not endangered and that the Pacific currents have moved, the E-Mails from the CRU show the same attempts to stifle disagreement.
Just the same as we have seen with Clovis First.
Over here the government is urging us to 'drive 5 miles less each week to save the planet!'
A charity group wants us all to contribute to a fund the 'save the Polar bear!'
We are constantly bombarded with sea level rises totally at odds with your sattelite measurements, and no mention about the fact that southern Britain is sinking.
Jones, from the CRU, has stated in the E-Mails that GW has stopped, publicly he says this a blip and GW will resume within a decade. He cannot explain why GW has stopped, cannot explain how they didn't predict that and is offering no evidence to support his suggestion that GW will resume within a decade.
This is not science Min, it's propaganda!

Here's the man I referred to Min. Now warmist don't have to agree with him, but he has a deal of experience and the courtesy of listening to him would not do any harm if MMGW science is as solid as some claim. To bar him from Copenhagen seems more like censorship, the similarity with treatment meeted out to Clovis First critics is striking.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... mists.html

Roy.

[Minimalist]

But that is not exactly what Jones said. What he said was that for the 15 year period he found the rate of global warming to be not statistically significant but that over a longer period it would be. That is not exactly saying that it "stopped."


Sounds as if he is trying to discredit the morons (and I run into them every day over here....we call them Republicans....) who say "it snowed TODAY! How can there be global warming!!!"


Did you have any luck with that NOVA special?

[Minimalist]

Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".

But both sides are wrong. Both natural and man-made causes are interacting. I agree with you that humans hate the fact that there is nothing they can do about the natural causes so they fixate on the man-made portion of the equation. But let's not pretend that pumping out tons of shit into the atmosphere every day is not having any effect at all.

I do think R/S's point was valid. We cannot stop what is going to happen so we should concentrate on dealing with the aftermath. Where will 100+ million Bangladeshis go when the sea floods their whole country? I can't see India welcoming 100+ million muslims with open arms.

[Digit]

Did you have any luck with that NOVA special?

Nope!

Agreed he was not precise in that interview Min, but he did say it, word for word, in the E-Mails and stated that 'it is a tragedy' that they cannot explain why.
What makes it worse is that he knew that quite some time ago but continued with the same old mantra regardless.
His public comment about the E-mail is to say that it was taken out of context. Quite how that could be he explains not, nor has he taken the obvious step of publishing the context.
Look at the comments of the IPCC co chair in relation to the earlier expose about the Himalayan glaciers by the Indian government, 'Voodoo science!' and he has refused to retract.
I'm sorry Min, but when experts are reduced to lying and insulting others I tend to have serious doubts about them!
Like the cold blooded Dinos and the mentally retarded HSN these 'facts' tend to take on a life of their own if repeated often enough.
I do not doubt that CO2 can do what is claimed, so can we now mention Methane, water vapour, Milankovitch Cycles, sea currents, Solar variations, high and low level cloud formations, Sun spots etc etc.
Putting all ones eggs in one basket is not very advisable.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Nope!

Shit.

[Digit]

Here we go! Here we go! here we Go oo!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 170208.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 152941.htm

Roy.

[Digit]

The study found that since 1980, the average global temperature had increased by about 0.5C and that the Earth was continuing to warm at the rate of about 0.16C a decade. This trend is reflected in measurements from the oceans. Warmer temperatures had led to more evaporation from the surface, most noticeably in the sub-tropical Atlantic, said Dr Stott. As a result, the sea was getting saltier. Evaporation in turn affected humidity and rainfall. The atmosphere was getting more humid, as climate models had predicted, and amplifying the water cycle. This meant that more rain was falling in high and low latitudes and less in tropical and sub-tropical regions.

Anyone see anything odd in this?

From here...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 050341.ece

Roy.

[Digit]

Something else we didn't know, what else I wonder?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... ming_trend

Roy.

[Digit]

More info. More confusion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... a-ice.html

Roy.

[dannan14]

And for some reason they neglect to ask "why do the winds behave like that?", well, at least the journalist forgot to ask that. i hope that the researchers would.

[Digit]

Somebody on another forum had a dig at me yesterday for not saying all that I wished to say in one post. I explained that I preferred to deal with subjects a step at the time and allow others their say.
In that vein I have to agree Danaan, which is why I said 'more confusion'. It's only half an explanation.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Visit My Website

The island in the Bay of Bengal that Bangladesh called South Talpatti and India called New Moore or Purbasha appeared after a devastating cyclone, and it appeared right near the territorial boundary between the two. Decades of fighting over the uninhabited speck of land led to no political resolution. But now there’s a perfectly clear geographical resolution: The sea has reclaimed the island, scientists say.

According to oceanographer Sugata Hazra, the island was never very big, peaking at around 1.3 miles by 1.1 miles. The island began shrinking in the 1990s, part of an 81-square-mile decline in land mass in the Bay of Bengal’s Sunderbans mudflats over the last 40 years, Hazra said. And 27 square miles more has been lost to erosion. In the 1990s, the island was only 2 meters above sea level [Los Angeles Times]. Some experts say that in addition to erosion, rising sea levels caused by global warming are also to blame. Oceanographer Sugata Hazra, who discovered the island’s disappearance while looking at satellite photos, argues that sea-level rise caused by climate change was ‘’surely” a factor in the island’s inundation…. ‘The rate of sea-level rise in this part of the northern Bay of Bengal is definitely attributable to climate change,” he said [Sydney Morning Herald].

Underlining added.


On the plus side, it probably wasn't all that much of an island anyway. When we lose Manhattan maybe someone will pay attention?

[dannan14]

On the plus side, it probably wasn't all that much of an island anyway. When we lose Manhattan maybe someone will pay attention?

Can we lose LA first?

[Minimalist]

My understanding of plate tectonics is that LA is going UP not down.

Unlikely that it will go up high enough for anyone left to get a nosebleed.