Reply With Quote
Piers Corbyn = Wild Cobra. I can't wait to read about some high school graduate showing up to a Global Warming conference with a diorama of the earth and sun and a 4 slide power point on why the Sun is causing Global Warming. Can't wait.
What happened to global warming?
By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.
The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
Ocean cycles
What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.
“ In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down ”
According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.
In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Ins ute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.
So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.
One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.
Piers Corbyn = Wild Cobra. I can't wait to read about some high school graduate showing up to a Global Warming conference with a diorama of the earth and sun and a 4 slide power point on why the Sun is causing Global Warming. Can't wait.
What proof do you have otherwise?
There is ample proof that CO2 is not the cause of warming.
Now the article is in essence correct. I noted two things immediatly that were wrong. It's not 98% of the heat that comes from the sun, it's nearly all. I use > 99.9%. The number is something like 99.998%, but I'd have to look it up again. The second thing is that he is going by Hanson's falsified data adjustment for the 1998 being the hottest year on record. After they discovered the error, the hottest year is farther back, sometime in the 30's if I recall. 1998 was something like the 3rd hottest year.
Maybe you should read the material from someone else who does a better job at explaining the same things I have talked about:
CO2 figures, cycle, solubility, GHG effect, oceanic scale, and biosequestration
As the ocean temperature rises, the equilibrium is changed. From Lance Endersbee: Sea Surface Temperature and CO2 levels:
Maybe you shpuld start here:
Arthors "My Story," part of link:
I was an environmentalist who believed in Global Warming.
I saw Al Gore's film and was convinced by his science that is built on the work of Roger Revelle and others, and the beliefs of most scientists today. I was convinced by his statement, backed up by a study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes, that there was consensus among scientists, and that only "kooks or crooks" now differed. Al Gore showed a very serious picture - threatening our whole future - unless we drastically lower our carbon dioxide emissions, and unless we act quickly. James Hansen, high up in NASA, showed even more alarming scenarios possible.
I then joined Transition Towns and learned about Peak Oil as well. I checked and checked the official science of Global Warming, the "greenhouse effect" of CO2, and the many "rebuttals of skeptics' arguments" at New Scientist, BBC, Gristmill, Royal Society, Skeptical Science, Met Office, and RealClimate. They all said, in effect "... there are a very limited number of objections or attacks on what is really very sound and well resolved science" :-
* Our CO2 emissions were the cause of the "unprecedented" rising CO2 levels,
* since "nothing else" could have caused this.
* And the rising CO2 must have caused the "unprecedented" global temperature rise,
* since, again, there was "nothing else".
I was then challenged by contradictory evidence -
- that steadily rising CO2 does NOT fit cooling periods as well as warming periods -
- that "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is bad science and even outright fraud -
- that no runaway "tipping points" are even possible -
- that there is no science "consensus" -
- many have done two "U-turns", ignorant skeptic > AGW believer > informed skeptic
* Global temperatures have been falling for ten years, yet CO2 is rising as steadily as ever
* Carbon Dioxide is the foodstuff of plants, and cannot cause more than a tiny amount of global warming
* Global warming is not bad for life; cooling is far more hazardous
* Global temperatures have been changing at all times, in both recorded history and geology
* there is no consensus - and any claim that "the debate is over" is at best unscientific, at worst fraudulent
* Most scientists are only familiar with their particular discipline and, doubting their ability to assess the whole global warming thesis, often say "I believe in Global Warming... except in my speciality"
* Climate Science has been taken over by people with political agendas, headed up by the UN IPCC
* Seriously suspect "alarmist" science has arisen, some directly sponsored by IPCC
* All the the media and science publications are putting out the alarmist science
* All the major science bodies have "refutations" of the skeptics' science - but the refutations do not hold up
* Activists and much of the media have been engaged in libellous slander against all the best skeptics
* People are now in grave danger of making blunders of a size never seen before, based on bad science.
Who pays me: I'm not now, nor ever was or will be, in the pay of any big business to promote their position. I wish I had more money.
I wish I didn't have to put in this disclaimer - especially since almost all the slush funding now goes towards AGW support.
It took me a solid month of study to be sure which side was correct.
Some basic issues have been skewed or ignored; some areas are still unclear.
Checking and counter-checking both sides was essential.
For evidence and references to back all this up, please see the full story
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-11-2009 at 11:04 AM.
What proof do you have? Have you ever actually done RESEARCH? No, because you don't even have a bachelors.
No there isn't. There isn't conclusive "proof" either way.There is ample proof that CO2 is not the cause of warming.
This outta be good.Now the article is in essence correct.
Was your spelling of immediately one of those things?I noted two things immediatly that were wrong.
"Nearly all". Such scientific verbage.It's not 98% of the heat that comes from the sun, it's nearly all.
50% is < 99.9%. Your designation is not scientific.I use < 99.9%.
Please do and link to a significant number of studies that offer proof of that percentage.The number is something like 99.998%, but I'd have to look it up again.
Falsified? Are you claiming a known scientist falsified data? Link?The second thing is that he is going by Hanson's falsified data adjustment for the 1998 being the hottest year on record.
Do you know the difference between "falsified" and "erroneous"?After they discovered the error
Link?, the hottest year is farther back, sometime in the 30's if I recall. 1998 was something like the 3rd hottest year.
Maybe you should stop acting like a scientist.Maybe you should read the material from someone else who does a better job at explaining the same things I have talked about:
I'll do what WC does: Provide something that proves 100% that global warming is a farce or that CO2 is not the cause. 100%...
"Global Warming" is an outdated term anyway. The politically correct term now is "Climate Change". That covers their ass no matter what. Earliest snows ever in Colorado? Yep..there's that damn climate change...Record low temperatures in New England? Yep..damn climate change again...there is just WAY too much money in the climate change scam...Academics and Researchers live on grants, and all the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of grants go to "prove" climate change...it's a self perpetuating scam with the end goal of politicians ultimately controlling, allocating, and taxing energy. The "winners" in climate change legislation will be those that pay the biggest bribes to the political aristocratic ruling class. Climate change legislation isn't about saving the planet, it's about politicians looting it.
wc is the only one using facts. There is a reason why gore doesn't debate global warming or discuss his nine major mistakes of his movie.
facts that don't answer the question dummy!
I find it hypocritical how they term cooling as temperary, but not warming]
Well it seems he is far more educated than you are, he has a degree in pyschics and astro psychics,which it seems makes him credible to speak upon weather patterens. I mean Obama is a community organizer,who accomplished jack and squat and you voted for him to be president, this corbyn seems to have far more credibility to forecast weather than Obama has to run an economy, and yet you give Obama your blind trust.
And it's not like he's some corprate shill. The guy ran for political office in England as a Marxist, I mean that must buy him some crediblity with you.
What would those be?
i find it hypocritical to ignore the drastic examples of climate changes..
Wow...
Looking at other things, and several replies since my last.
I'll respond later to them, looking at other things at the moment, but thought I'd post this comical video:
Well it seems he is far more educated than you are, he has a degree in pyschics and astro psychics,which it seems makes him credible to speak upon weather patterens. I mean Obama is a community organizer who accomplished jack and suqat and you voted for him to be president, this corbyn seems to have far more credibility to forecast weather than Obama has to run an economy, and yet you give Obama your blind trust.
And it's not like he's some corprate shill. The guy ran for political office in England as a Marxist, I mean that must buy him some crediblity with you.
hey shasta the spelling bee champ, where are you?
And I eagerly await his findings. Until then, there's nothing to believe or disbelieve about his work.
What does this have to do with Obama?I mean Obama is a community organizer,who accomplished jack and squat and you voted for him to be president,
No I don't.this corbyn seems to have far more credibility to forecast weather than Obama has to run an economy, and yet you give Obama your blind trust.
I never grow tired of people not knowing the differences between socialism, marxism, fascism, etc.And it's not like he's some corprate shill. The guy ran for political office in England as a Marxist, I mean that must buy him some crediblity with you.
i can't wait for you to provide me 100% evidence that all of this is a scam..in other words the answer to global warming..100%
Right here big guy.
sorry jackass. i don't do your work. if u are uneducated in something, i think you should utilize your resources available to you and edumacate yourself.
why don't you get back to u when know what socialism,facsism,marxisism..mean dumbass...
my god you're a deuche and a hypocrite
toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe
It's on you actually. "I won't do your homework for you" is such a tired excuse.
No, the difference between those is not pronunciation. Try again.
what does that have to do w/ global warming hoax?
so you don't know the difference...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
