Well, according to data from the Hadley Centre, we are likely to see a slight downturn in temperatures over the next few years before they start to rise in earnest in 2010-2011...
How convenient of the Hadley centre, that just after temperatures have levelled off for a few years, the models are tweaked and end up showing a slight down turn for the next few years and then more global warming in 2010-11 etc. Should keep them in work for the next few years.
What exactly is the explanation for the current levelling off of temperatures?
How convenient of the Hadley centre, that just after temperatures have levelled off for a few years, the models are tweaked and end up showing a slight down turn for the next few years and then more global warming in 2010-11 etc. Should keep them in work for the next few years.
What exactly is the explanation for the current levelling off of temperatures?
If you are accusing the Hadley Centre of scientific fraud or some other dishonesty, why not say so?
No, just crap science based on computer models that seem to be tweaked every five minutes to reflect what is actually happening, rather than acurately predicting it in the first place.
Lets not forget that the Hadley centre predicted that 2007 would be the warmest year on record. Actually turned out to be 6/7th. Hardly fills you with confidence for them predicting 3 years into the future.
Please explain the recent non-global warming. I am on tenterhooks.
Originally posted by engineerer: No, just crap science based on computer models that seem to be tweaked every five minutes to reflect what is actually happening, rather than acurately predicting it in the first place.
Lets not forget that the Hadley centre predicted that 2007 would be the warmest year on record. Actually turned out to be 6/7th. Hardly fills you with confidence for them predicting 3 years into the future.
Please explain the recent non-global warming. I am on tenterhooks.
First you'll need to explain why the models aren't precisely accurate if they are "tweaked every 5 minutes". I mean, we'd never see any divergence between the models and measurements at all, would we?
BTW which combination of my 'How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic' claims to you suscribe to?
Looking at this do you think that we have a "recent non warming"? If you draw a trend line through that data you will see a clear warming trend on the order of 0.1-0.2oC per decade i.e. what has been generally predicted. You'd may not be surprised to learn that your claim of "recent non warming" gets parrotted regularly without scant regard of the facts. I've observed people claiming a recent non warming trend over the last four years, yet the data clearly shows that there has been a warming trend during this period, odd....
The MetOffice predictions are a far more specific and detailed form of modelling not used previously. You need to get it straight as to what they are actually claiming because you are currently conflating the mythical "recent non warming" with what they claimed for the later part of this deacade. This makes your arguments pretty poor; not only has there been recent warming, but you are discussing the wrong time period.
Let's get it straight, the period of reduced warming lies presumably between Summer 2007 and the end of 2009. To be clear, this therefore has got nothing to do with your mythical and alledged period of "recent non warming".
How then are the models tuned every 5 minutes? Is this a piece of rhetoric on your part? And are you just making it up? If you want to discuss some real data or your first hand accounts on how climate modelling is carried out then fine, but rhetorical arguments based solely on what you like to be true aren't of any value.
Even if the temperature does seem to level off, it is predicted to rise much more sharply from about 2020, by which time it could be too late to do anything about (if it isn't too late already, that is!). The problem is that sceptics will always read a decline as indicating that GW isn't happening - and there's not much that non-sceptics can do about that...
Originally posted by Son of Mulder: Podbod, Why does the global average in the attached data from Hadley look flat to slightly falling for the last 4 years?
CO2 is not the only 'player' in a global temperature variation scenario (global warming, perhaps), so it's no surprise that there are contortions in the temperature record for our planet. However, CO2 is the 'player' under the 'spot light' as the cause for temperature increase and, again, it's no surprise that the other temperature forcings that are not under the 'spot light' cause great fluctuations in global temperature. This only adds to the confusion as to where the 'spot light' should really be aimed.
Do you have another emphasis for the 'spot light' that doesn't generate consternation in those that can't adjust to the changes? If not, I'd respectfully suggest that you accept the CO2 definition with all its inadequacies. Global temperatures shall continue their climb 'soon'.
Originally posted by suricat: CO2 is not the only 'player' in a global temperature variation scenario.
Suricat,
Guess what - global temperature HAS always varied, and WILL always vary!
Do I detect a hint in the above quote that if global temperatures nosedive, you'll pop up and say, "See - I told you so - we are in the midst of a global temperature variation scenario, (so please don't stop paying all those climate scientists those research grants)!"
Take a look at the variations noted by scientists and reported in the press in just the tiny amount of time that was the 20th century:
Guess what - global temperature HAS always varied, and WILL always vary!
You're not wrong there! It is also the case that the organisms on this planet have, to varying degrees, been responsible for such changes over Earth's long history. Some have been advantageous, but other changes have led to massive extinctions.
Given that we now have some evidence that we might be responsible for at least some of these changes, and that we might be able to do something about it, wouldn't it be sensible to try? Or would you rather leave it all down to "fate", and await our eventual demise along with that of many other species?
You're not wrong there! It is also the case that the organisms on this planet have, to varying degrees, been responsible for such changes over Earth's long history. Some have been advantageous, but other changes have led to massive extinctions.
Yeah, I've heard how the dinosaurs wiped themselves out when their civilisation began to industrialise.
quote:
Originally posted by Lucibee: Given that we now have some evidence that we might be responsible for at least some of these changes, and that we might be able to do something about it, wouldn't it be sensible to try? Or would you rather leave it all down to "fate", and await our eventual demise along with that of many other species?
Well, let's see. We’ve suffered twenty years of:
Ferocious campaigning; Ever increasing doom-mongering TV and newspaper stories, which in many cases has morphed into propaganda; Governments jumping on the bandwagon and actually taxing the process of emitting co2; Research and climate conferences, junkets and jobs for the boys, that have cost £BILLIONS; Western nations going out of their way to stop African nations from developing.
All this to stop levels of co2 from increasing.
And what has it achieved?
Well co2 levels are still increasing, so...
And why was so much effort and money spent and so much hardship endured?
Because global temperatures were rising, and scientists theorised that if we stopped levels of co2 from increasing, we could make global temperatures fall again.
But then a funny thing happened - whilst co2 levels continued to rise, global temperature stopped rising.
Did scientists (and environmental journalists come to that):
(a) Make an announcement about it and add, "Perhaps the theory is wrong, or has to be modified in some way", i.e. put their well paid job and nice lifestyle in jeopardy.
(b) Keep quiet and hope nobody noticed.
It's okay, it's a rhetorical question.
Face it - enough of humanity's time, effort and resources have been wasted on this - it's time to grow up and move on and pull the rug out from under the leeches that have cynically and inhumanly played this up for their own benefit.
Face it - enough of humanity's time, effort and resources have been wasted on this - it's time to grow up and move on and pull the rug out from under the leeches that have cynically and inhumanly played this up for their own benefit.
Now you've got that off your chest, perhaps you could go away and research the subject a little?
Sorry, did you have something to contribute to this thread? Use your Page Up key and you'll see what the topic is.
The answer to the thread question is no.
Your follow-up indicated that your reading was limited to "sceptic" sites. The aip site puts things into historical context.
My reply was to your rhetorical outpouring against climate scientists. Declaring and interest here: some of them are my good friends and colleagues.
The more detailed answer to the question is that many of the models show similiar patterns in the surface temperature record (and these models were developed and run a number of years ago - so weren't "tweaked" to match the reality). You can see this in the graphs in the IPCC assessment reports.
Such variability can be is due to natural variability in the various "oscillations" of ocean currents such as ENSO (El Nino, La Nina), PDO (Pacific decadal oscillation), etc. which are hard to predict, as well as the solar cycle.
The prediction that 2007 would be warmer than 1998 was on the expectation that the El Nino would continue whereas in fact it died away and was replaced by La Nina (which result in cooler global surface temperatures). We still have La Nina which is why this year will probably not beat the record. The Hadley decadal forecast suggested that next year would also be cooler...but we'll see. Decadal forecasting is in very early days - the scientific paper that presented the forecast discussed all the uncertainties.
I won't be concerned (about the correctness of the science) unless the climate starts cooling - say a couple of years with temperatures like thos of 1999-2000, where a volcano is not the culprit.
