View Full Version : No significant warming for 17 years 4 months
The title says it all... facts are facts, (un)fortunately.
I wonder how much money has already been spent and how much is there still to be spent because of the flawed statistical analysis that backups the global warming climate change model.
Source : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/13/no-significant-warming-for-17-years-4-months/
Hi Dimitri,
Nice to see you posting again after what I think has been a long absence - hope all is well with you and yours.
The whole Global Warming/Climate Change debate has got me thoroughly undecided as to the real picture. Is something unusual happening or is it all part of natures normal pattern of variation? If it is all or mainly hype why is it being 'pushed' so vigorously in the mainstream media? Usually when such things happen it is big business aiming to move public opinion in a direction which will enable them to increase their profits but I can't see how they might achieve this aim in this situation - I'm deeply puzzled by both the facts and the motives.
Cheers,
Dave.
Something is going on....the Polar Bears and Penguins are having to adapt to smaller places to live.
StanleyB
15-06-2013, 18:32
Climate sceptics more often than not talk about global warming, whilst the debate is about climate change. There is a big difference. The variations between hot and cold, and dry versus wet spells have become extreme in the last couple of decades. The physical evidence is there for us in the UK to see.
StanleyB
15-06-2013, 18:35
Usually when such things happen it is big business aiming to move public opinion in a direction which will enable them to increase their profits but I can't see how they might achieve this aim in this situation - I'm deeply puzzled by both the facts and the motives.
Big business is in denial. The media is there to inform us. Would you prefer the media kept quiet about MPs expenses, NSA, wikeleaks, corporations avoiding tax etc?
MikeMusic
16-06-2013, 11:14
Thought this was now accepted, hasn't even Bush Jnr accepted it ?
I assume the New Scientist hast to be accepted as neutral in this, I'm way behind with reading them, currently mid 2009.
"Nothing is 100% certain" is what they say, but they also estimate, from my memory by around 2030 there will be huge changes.
From the way I read the many different articles on many different areas there definitely be massive change this century, likely catastrophic.
This could be much sooner and if any of the many tipping points are reached we are done for
The main problems
1. The deniers
2. The scientists who don't do media
Gordon Steadman
16-06-2013, 12:15
I find it astonishing that so many 'deniers' have such a fixed opinion on this. Only the climate scientists have the necessary knowledge to be able to make a judgement. If, as seems to be the case, 95% of them believe there is a case to be made for man increasing the risk of global warming, who am I to argue?
It seems indicative of the truth that the main deniers appear to be connected with the likely causes. I long ago lost patience with them all. This is one case where Pascal's wager seems the safest route to take. Millions accept it in the case of religion, why not for this?
Some very un-informed posts on this. I would advise reading up on the subject. There is a lot of money to be made in the 'Green/renewables' industry, most of which comes from taxpayers like yourselves. It has to because so called 'green technology' doesn't actually work well enough to pay for itself. The stand out example being the wind farm industry. Massively subsidised by you and utterly useless, they will never generate enough electricity in their operational lifetime (10 years) to pay for the cost of construction. That is why when money for subsidies ran out in California everyone walked away leaving the place littered with derelict turbines.
There is no empirical evidence (something that genuine science requires) to suggest that there any 'global warming' or 'climate change' occurring that is beyond natural variation. You will know pretty quickly if someone finds some as they will certainly win the Nobel.
The whole thing is now a government/corporate scam to fleece taxpayers by the back door, based on junk science, inaccurate computer models and outright lies designed to tug at the heartstrings of the lumpen masses (polar bears drowning, Himylayan galciers melting, islands disappearing, 'weird weather' and so on. The BBC has a vested interet in pushing this crap because it has a chunk of its pension fund invested in 'renewables'.
For a balanced and scientific approach I would recommend the Bishop Hill and wattsupwiththat sites.
Oh and the '97% of scientists agree' stat is a lie too.
Follow the money.
Gordon Steadman
16-06-2013, 18:42
Some very un-informed posts on this. I would advise reading up on the subject. There is a lot of money to be made in the 'Green/renewables' industry, most of which comes from taxpayers like yourselves. It has to because so called 'green technology' doesn't actually work well enough to pay for itself. The stand out example being the wind farm industry. Massively subsidised by you and utterly useless, they will never generate enough electricity in their operational lifetime (10 years) to pay for the cost of construction. That is why when money for subsidies ran out in California everyone walked away leaving the place littered with derelict turbines.
There is no empirical evidence (something that genuine science requires) to suggest that there any 'global warming' or 'climate change' occurring that is beyond natural variation. You will know pretty quickly if someone finds some as they will certainly win the Nobel.
The whole thing is now a government/corporate scam to fleece taxpayers by the back door, based on junk science, inaccurate computer models and outright lies designed to tug at the heartstrings of the lumpen masses (polar bears drowning, Himylayan galciers melting, islands disappearing, 'weird weather' and so on. The BBC has a vested interet in pushing this crap because it has a chunk of its pension fund invested in 'renewables'.
For a balanced and scientific approach I would recommend the Bishop Hill and wattsupwiththat sites.
Oh and the '97% of scientists agree' stat is a lie too.
Follow the money.
Sorry mate, I totally disagree. You are quoting from the deniers bible and frankly most of it is bollocks. There is no point discussing it further as it seems to polarise opinion more than any other subject. Don't get me into conspiracy theories either, life is too short.
Nobodies talking about conspiracy theories. In any case would you say that there has never been a conspiracy in all of history? I have no idea what this 'denier's Bible' is either. Opinion is polarised on this because a lot of people do not take the time to actually research the subject and just jump to the conclusion that suits them. Like you I used to think that it was 'all true', but I took the time and the trouble to find out if my opinion was valid. That's when I changed my opinion.
This is a very serious subject as the drive to renewables and a 'low carbon economy' will vastly reduce the standard of living for everyone. In response to a non-existent threat we will create a very real disaster.
walpurgis
16-06-2013, 18:59
As for what is "bollocks", who can tell these days. There is so much diverse opinion and 'data'. It seem to recall about twenty years ago we were being warned of the possible approach of the second Ice Age. Personally, I think it's all crap. Nobody presents anything inconrovertible and provable. My opinion is that climate is cyclic and will change, sometimes to extremes and has always done so.
Opinion is polarised on this because a lot of people do not take the time to actually research the subject and just jump to the conclusion that suits them. Like you I used to think that it was 'all true', but I took the time and the trouble to find out if my opinion was valid. That's when I changed my opinion.
That's the case of almost everybody around me, myself included.
Actually, the reason why I started getting information about it was that the provisional data didn't confirm with actual data in 2000, then 2005.
I estimated that scientific methods that cannot precisely foresee the very subject they are supposed to estimate (with a reasonably scientific deviation) were dummy. Such erroneous estimations could not possibly be part of a "coincidence" or "mistake". Not twice;
So I double-checked what the hell these theories based solely on statistics were about.
Gordon Steadman
16-06-2013, 19:13
As for what is "bollocks", who can tell these days. There is so much diverse opinion and 'data'. It seem to recall about twenty years ago we were being warned of the possible approach of the second Ice Age. Personally, I think it's all crap. Nobody presents anything inconrovertible and provable. My opinion is that climate is cyclic and will change, sometimes to extremes and has always done so.
I don't have a personal opinion because I am unqualified to have one. I have read all the guff that Macca alludes to and it spouts the same gobbledegook as all the other denier sites. There is no point in arguing or even discussing. The deniers are convinced they are right and its all a conspiracy and the rest of us either have to accept the evidence as presented by science or just cross our fingers and hope for the best. I am old enough to be grateful that I have seen the times that I have but fear for the next few generations. I'm glad I didn't have kids.
We can't conclude much with recent data except that a considerable amount of more extreme weather has occurred recently but this proves little. The polar ice cap almost vanishing is a recent change but do we really know what happened a few hundred years ago?
A lot of the US skepticism to climate change is driven by their power hungry industry, these guys are behind a lot of these anti websites. They are as reliable as the US pro-gun lobby.
Ithe rest of us either have to accept the evidence as presented by science .
There is no evidence- that is entirely my point. Failed computer models are not scientific evidence and that is really all there is to suggest that there is a problem. All of the predictions made 15 to 20 years ago have turned out to be complete nonsense. Remember 'children will not know what snow is' and 'The west side highway on Manhatten island will be under water'? Never happened. The predicted rise in global temperature? Never happened. Big Power is making money from both sides - they get huge government grants for renewables, and because the renewables don't work, they still make money from oil coal and gas. Frankly I nowadays tend to assume that anyone fighting in the climate change corner has a vested interest. Either they work in the renewable industry, have invested in it, are paid to support it, or have an extreme left-wing political agenda - one that requires societal collapse to get started.
Gordon Steadman
16-06-2013, 20:33
No more on this subject from me but I advise reading the link in depth
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
MikeMusic
16-06-2013, 20:50
The theme I see from New Scientist articles is that we already (in 2009) past the point of anything green working.
Separate items over periods of months, by different authors I believe, on different subjects.
Last one I remember was about the Russian tundra melting and releasing god knows how much (carbon or methane I think)
There was an article about being green in energy saving and totally doing in the environment.
Wind farms may work in some windy places but they kill loads of birds and bats, cost a fortune and may come to the end of their life before payback.
There might be a wonderful scientific whiz about to save us costing £billions, but the overriding message I get is our successors are screwed, maybe even us older punters.
I keep thinking this is not a good thing to read at breakfast time .........
It was all Maggie Thatchers doing!! .....being serious here, he got the ball rolling on this in wanting to push through more nuclear energy programs.....
dont deny that the climate has changed but the cause/causes are anything but sure...
No more on this subject from me but I advise reading the link in depth
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Ironically it is best to be sceptical about this site. There are 2 main reasons. Firstly it accuses 'deniers' of cherry picking research then goes on to do exactly that itself. Second is use of the word 'denier'. For those not familiar with the term I will explain that it's use is an attempt to link sceptics with those fringe loons who deny the Holocaust in attempt to close down debate on the subject in a similar manner to the use of 'racist' to close down any discussion of immigration. Draw your own conclusions.
As long as following the climate sceptic money leads directly back to the big oil companies any arguement made by them has, in my view, to be discounted.
As I said previously, Big Oil is playing both sides. They do not need to worry about green technology taking away their existing revenue streams because it doesn't work. They also take millions of pounds from governments to 'develop' green technology that doesn't work. Either way they are winners and the idea that they are spending millions to counter climate change sceptics is a fantasy. What do the intials 'B.P' stand for? British Petroleum? Not any more. 'Beyond Petroleum' is their moniker now.
In the past 20 years we have doubled the amount of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. Yet temperature remains unchanged. This is in direct contradiction to the predictions made about 'global warming' 20 years ago. That is why 'global warming' had to morph into the far more elastic 'climate change', and more recently into the quite ludicrous 'global weirding', which attempts to link hurricanes, tornadoes and flooding, events that have been occurring since before mankind existed, to increased CO2.
Theories have been advanced that suggest that the 'missing' heat is either in the troposphere or the deep oceans. A lot of research has been done attempting to find it. So far to no avail. If it is found you will know about it as it will be Nobel Prize-winning research.
Out of interest I wonder how many of you think that hurricane Katrina and the New Orleans disaster were a result of 'global warming' and how many of you think it was simply a natural consequence of building a large part of the city below the level of the adjoining lake and then failing to maintain the levees?
Sorry Macca but you seem to be very badly informed. Temperatures have risen about .8 celsius over the last hundred years with half of that occuring since 1980. Green technologies work quite well, NZ produces between 75 & 80 percent of its power from renewables, Germany seems to think it works well enough to ditch nuclear and Denmark does pretty well also. Those are just examples off the top of my head without doing much research.
Oh and don't forget the South Pacific nations that are drowning because of all the changes that you say aren't happening. There are plenty of people around the world who are feeling the effects of this imaginary climate change.
I'm badly informed! The Germans are not replacing nuclear with renewables, they are building coal fired power stations to replace nuclear.
Please provide a link for your claim about New Zealand as that sounds like total fantasy.
Sea level has not risen and no Pacific nations are drowning. The Maldives government did pull a publicity stunt a while back in the hope of getting some free money though.
Denmark has ceased to spend money on wind generation, as, quite simply, it does not work. In fact the 'wind industry' is a complete scam.
There are many suggested figures for temperature rise in the last 100 years, as it depends what data sets you are using to measure it and how that data is manipulated and compensated for. Regardless it is perfectly in keeping with the decline of the 'ice age', the earth has been getting warmer for the last 30 thousand years without any assistance from man. That is why there is not a 2 mile thick ice sheet on top of the UK any more.
NZ power production:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_New_Zealand
Sea level rise:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
Denmark Energy:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Denmark
Germany and coal power:- http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/05/debunking-common-myths-about-nuclear-coal-power-in-germany-this-time-repeated-by-the-guardian/
Drowning Pacific Nation:- http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-186854449/tuvalu-drowning-or-waving-the-low-lying-islands
Thanks Mike - I was unaware that NZ generated so much power from geothermal and hydro. However I should point out that to use either method for power generation requires the correct geology. If you have that they are very effective. Unfortunately most of the world, including the UK and Europe, does not. You will also note that generation from wind power in NZ is only 4.5% of generated power. Plus don't forget that as the wind does not always blow a constant reserve is required from more reliable power sources if you are to avoid brown outs and black outs.
You sea level rise link is very dodgy. Obviously Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an agenda and it is easy to cherry-pick research papers that support a certain hypothesis. In reality global sea level is extremely difficult to measure accurately as it like water sloshing around in a bowl - not a bath filling up. The whole tone of that article is clearly biased. Like wise your link to Denmark.
Your final link doesn't seem to have anything to do with the expansion of coal generated power in Germany. It is link to a commercial site that sells 'green solutions' so not biased at all. The article actually is a very poor and unreferenced attempt to criticise a Guardian commentator who is actualy a cheerleader for global warming and the massive changes required to our society to make it go away - unfortuantley he has recently decided that nuclear power is the only way to successfully cut CO2 emmisions whilst also keeping the lights on, thus losing him many brownie points with his eco-fantasy supporters.
Please don't imagine that I am in any way opposed to alternative energy, ecology, green solutions and so on. I firmly believe that more should be done to curb pollution, preserve wilderness and wild animal habitats, plant trees and generally make the world a better place for us and our descendants. However I am only interested in solutions that work. If we could power the UK with Geo and hydro I would be all for it. The reality is we cannot. What is worse is that the whole CO2/warming alarmism actually detracts from the genuine green issues, having been hijacked by those who have a political or financial incentive.
walpurgis
17-06-2013, 14:52
It's all "Lies. Damn lies and statistics............."
As somebody who I can't be bothered to Google once said.
Martin, I have to admit that since I left Germany about 5 years ago I haven't been paying as much attention to what they are doing as I used to. The point is that the coal powered stations coming on line now were started before the decision to end nuclear power was taken.
The point of using Wikipedia is that there are plenty of links that can be used to check the veracity of the content. The governments here in the Pacific are quite worried about the amount of water sloshing about on their countries.
Wind power in NZ is on the increase, slowed mainly by the nimbys.
Geoff, very true but it doesn't help me when my feet get wet ;)
It's all "Lies. Damn lies and statistics............."
As somebody who I can't be bothered to Google once said.
it was that guy who wrote Huck finn
Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change, the worlds leading authority on the subject says Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.
A quick search online will show you that the overwhelming evidence shows that Nils-Axel Mörner is wrong and not seen as the worlds leading authority on this subject.
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.
Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.
One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.
He will do for me!!
This is beginning to sound like a cable thread.
The overwhelming evidence points towards the fact that the world is warming, at the very least helped along by human activities, one man disagreeing with that evidence doesn't make him right and everybody else wrong. You are argueing from a minority point of view and not showing a lot of evidence to back that view point. Please provide peer reviewed papers to back your position and then we can move on.
I am happy to agree that there has been some dubious research involved in this subject but to use that as an excuse to rubbish all the work done is ridiculous.
ps. Dr Mörner also claims that water dowsing works and seems to have had strong ties to the oil business.
The discussion is not about temperature rising, but the human influence (and more specifically CO2) in this rise.
It's to this very specific point that most of us seek evidence by analyzing the theories backing up this influence. And more specifically the statistical confidence of these theories.
We are obliged to be critical to this confidence, because these theories are solely based on statistics and nothing else.
Everything else is pure speculation and political or social opinions, not science.
Dimitri, I fear we may not have absolute, definitive proof until it is to late.
walpurgis
18-06-2013, 09:01
Loads of opinion, various standpoints, but no conclusions! It's a circular argument that nobody wins. A waste of time.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.