truman Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Can't be sure about what? Whether it's warming or not...the warming he was talking about wasn't ,according to him,statistically relevant...as this is all about statistics and their presentation then I reckon his admission is fairly important.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Whether it's warming or not...the warming he was talking about wasn't ,according to him,statistically relevant...as this is all about statistics and their presentation then I reckon his admission is fairly important.. It’s explained in the link why the climate hasn’t warmed significantly, something to do with el nino and the fact the suns output is lower. The problem is that it should be cooling and it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 It’s explained in the link why the climate hasn’t warmed significantly, something to do with el nino and the fact the suns output is lower. The problem is that it should be cooling and it isn't. So, if the Sun's 'output' (is that CME's, Sunspot activity, UV output, etc) can have such an effect as to negate the theorised effect of CO2 on our climate; why hasn't solar activity been part of the IPCC's models? Why have 'scientists' and Governments been scaremongering upon the effect of just one trace gas ? Why have results been 'adjusted' , why haven't the outputs from the models (If you've got it right surely you only need the one model?) matched observed data (not observed, not adjusted or normalised)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 So, if the Sun's 'output' (is that CME's, Sunspot activity, UV output, etc) can have such an effect as to negate the theorised effect of CO2 on our climate; why hasn't solar activity been part of the IPCC's models? Why have 'scientists' and Governments been scaremongering upon the effect of just one trace gas ? Why have results been 'adjusted' , why haven't the outputs from the models (If you've got it right surely you only need the one model?) matched observed data (not observed, not adjusted or normalised)? What makes you think I would know. What I know is that burning fossil fuels increases CO2 and CO2 along with other things which are greenhouse gasses and should make the planet warmer. I know we are cutting down forests and polluting the oceans lowers the ability of the planet to reduce CO2 so should make the planet warmer. So when the planet warms which obviously I can’t measure it doesn’t come as a shock. I am told that the suns output is lower and goes in cycles, and that 1998 was a peak in sun spot activity and 2009 was a trough in solar activity. Obviously I can’t measure this but if it is fact then 2010 should have been colder than 1998 but it wasn’t, it was the same. The logical conclusion that I reach, which appears to be the same conclusion that the Met office and various scientist have reached is that the warming affects of man and the cooling effect of solar output have cancelled each other out. Sun spot activity should peak again round 2020 and if I was a betting man, I would bet that 2020 will be the warmest year on record and this decade will be warmer than the last decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 What makes you think I would know. What I know is that burning fossil fuels increases CO2 and CO2 along with other things which are greenhouse gasses and should make the planet warmer. I know we are cutting down forests and polluting the oceans lowers the ability of the planet to reduce CO2 so should make the planet warmer. So when the planet warms which obviously I can’t measure it doesn’t come as a shock. I am told that the suns output is lower and goes in cycles, and that 1998 was a peak in sun spot activity and 2009 was a trough in solar activity. Obviously I can’t measure this but if it is fact then 2010 should have been colder than 1998 but it wasn’t, it was the same. The logical conclusion that I reach, which appears to be the same conclusion that the Met office and various scientist have reached is that the warming affects of man and the cooling effect of solar output have cancelled each other out. Sun spot activity should peak again round 2020 and if I was a betting man, I would bet that 2020 will be the warmest year on record and this decade will be warmer than the last decade. So to sum it up, you don't know. You've no idea. Don't believe evrything you're told by the MSM, the Met Office and the Government. Do a little research yourself. Don't just trust Wiki. Don't trust me. Read the IPCC's reports and try and find the holes in them (there are lots) Ask yourself why climate modellers need more than one model, could it be that they all have differing ideas and agendas? Question why the adjusted data shows warming (up to 97) yet the raw data is different? Asked about UHI, ask about the Yamal tree series? Ask if CO2 levels lead or lag Temperature? Ask why climate 'scientists' won't relase their base data, and methodology. Something most scientists are all too willing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) So to sum it up, you don't know. You've no idea. No but I just said that didn't I Don't believe evrything you're told by the MSM, the Met Office and the Government. Do a little research yourself. Don't just trust Wiki. Don't trust me. I don't. Read the IPCC's reports and try and find the holes in them (there are lots) Ask yourself why climate modellers need more than one model, could it be that they all have differing ideas and agendas? Question why the adjusted data shows warming (up to 97) yet the raw data is different? Asked about UHI, ask about the Yamal tree series? Ask if CO2 levels lead or lag Temperature? Ask why climateo 'scientists' won't relase their base data, and methodology. Something most scientists are all too willing to d. I don't need to as explained above. If I had no evidence at all I would assume that human activity would be likely to cause the planet to warm. I don’t need a science degree to know this, so when I am told that the planet is warming by various scientist, I have no need to question it because it make sense that it would be warming. So because the scientific data that I have seen supports what I already thought I have no need to question it. Edited January 31, 2012 by MrSmith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Now we all remember the “Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035″ error in IPCC AR4, where it would appear that they got it slightly wrong...(about 315 years wrong) Well it looks like they were even wider of the mark than first thought... The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, a study shows. The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows. The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall. The study is the first to survey all the world's icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps – Greenland and Antarctica – is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy. Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: "The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero." The melting of Himalayan glaciers caused controversy in 2009 when a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035, instead of 2350 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Now we all remember the “Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035″ error in IPCC AR4, where it would appear that they got it slightly wrong...(about 315 years wrong) Well it looks like they were even wider of the mark than first thought... The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, a study shows. Won't the warmists just say that they should have been growing not just standing still? :)That seems to be the current method of poopoo-ing the no "statistically significant" warming that's happening at the mo' ie it's not warming but should be colder than it is...perhaps Mr Pachauri should stick to writing fiction..oh hold on a minute.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 "If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Nov. 2007" Could translate into "the game will be up by 2012" better get the cash stashed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen66 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Forgive me for not reading the previous 142 pages so I do not know if this has been spoken of before or even if you can trust its content. A BBC Horizon programme broadcast in January 2005. Global Dimming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now