Some members of the Russian Academy of Sciences say we may be at the start of a period like that seen between 1790 and 1820, a minor decline in solar activity called the Dalton Minimum. It is something we must take seriously because what happened to the sun in the 17th century is bound to happen again sometime. It might even be the case that the earth’s response to low solar activity will overturn many of our assumptions about man’s influence on climate change. Cold not warmth might be our future. We do not know. We must keep watching the sun.
given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.
Some members of the Russian Academy of Sciences say we may be at the start of a period like that seen between 1790 and 1820, a minor decline in solar activity called the Dalton Minimum. It is something we must take seriously because what happened to the sun in the 17th century is bound to happen again sometime. It might even be the case that the earth’s response to low solar activity will overturn many of our assumptions about man’s influence on climate change. Cold not warmth might be our future. We do not know. We must keep watching the sun.
given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,” Professor Sutton said.
“Climate scientists absolutely expect variations in the rate at which surface temperature will rise….but that is not to say we understand all the details of the last 10 to 15 years,” Professor Sutton said.
The problem for the Met Office is to explain why the rate of increase in global temperatures has declined in recent years while concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have continued to accelerate.
"Global warming" is the only scientific theory that is an article of faith.
0
This is funny:
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,” Professor Sutton said.
“Climate scientists absolutely expect variations in the rate at which surface temperature will rise….but that is not to say we understand all the details of the last 10 to 15 years,” Professor Sutton said.
The problem for the Met Office is to explain why the rate of increase in global temperatures has declined in recent years while concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have continued to accelerate.
Still waiting on your evidence that disproves a consensus of evidence that the the climate is warming
There is no "consensus of evidence" and there is nothing to "disprove"
The earth is not warming, there is no actual data to show it is warming, and suggesting that 97% of anyone believing in a theory is proof the Earth is warming is laughable.
I do love the fact that the left thinks 15 years of temperature data indicates a trend regarding a planet that is over 4 billion years old.
That's hilarious.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
Still waiting on your evidence that disproves a consensus of evidence that the the climate is warming
There is no "consensus of evidence" and there is nothing to "disprove"
The earth is not warming, there is no actual data to show it is warming, and suggesting that 97% of anyone believing in a theory is proof the Earth is warming is laughable.
I do love the fact that the left thinks 15 years of temperature data indicates a trend regarding a planet that is over 4 billion years old.
My big issue with the global warming alarmists is the use of incorrect or even fraudulent data to "prove" their position on global warming.
Tempature stations is a good example. The historical standard is to have these stations 100 feet from obstacles that can effect temp and the site must be surrounded by grass or natural soil. A study by former meterologist Andrew Watts showed that 90% of the 1400 temp stations in the US are sited incorrectly (next to buildings or on asphalt), in a way that increases temp readings by 1.8 to 9 degrees. 64% of the stations had a warming bias of at least 3.6 degrees.
Another issue is the way global climate scientists change/adjust the data of the rural stations. In a study along with it's follow-up study in August 2012, the raw mean temps in the correctly sited rural stations were found to be .26 degrees per decade below the adjusted temps for poorly sited stations. Instead of adjusting the urban stations downward, the scientist adjusted the rural findings upward resulting in a false increase of nearly 3 times the rate in these properly sited rural ststaions.
There has also been a huge decline in the number of temp stations worldwide. There were almost 16,000 stations in 1970, almost 12,000 in 1990 and now we are down to less than 6,000. Most of these 7000 stations lost were in the northern hemisphere particularly in Siberia and Canada as cost cutting moves.
Also see how NASA scientist and global warming proponent, James Hanson, manipulated data to show that 1998 was the warmest year on record. After the error was exposed in his 2011 report, the correct findings showed 1998 to be cooler than 1934.
Now I'm not saying that there is or is not global warming but I do know both sides have an agenda and data has been changed/manipulated in away that we cannot even get accurate numbers. I think the 97% of scientists agree claim is bogus. I'd like to see the number of scientist that agree that are NOT getting paid large sums of money to validate a government's position on global warming. Scientist start with a conclusion in mind and then create algorithims and computer models to "prove" their already established position. Not hard to do if you know how to write a computer program and input only data that goes in your favor.
Stay disciplined and manage your bankroll
0
My big issue with the global warming alarmists is the use of incorrect or even fraudulent data to "prove" their position on global warming.
Tempature stations is a good example. The historical standard is to have these stations 100 feet from obstacles that can effect temp and the site must be surrounded by grass or natural soil. A study by former meterologist Andrew Watts showed that 90% of the 1400 temp stations in the US are sited incorrectly (next to buildings or on asphalt), in a way that increases temp readings by 1.8 to 9 degrees. 64% of the stations had a warming bias of at least 3.6 degrees.
Another issue is the way global climate scientists change/adjust the data of the rural stations. In a study along with it's follow-up study in August 2012, the raw mean temps in the correctly sited rural stations were found to be .26 degrees per decade below the adjusted temps for poorly sited stations. Instead of adjusting the urban stations downward, the scientist adjusted the rural findings upward resulting in a false increase of nearly 3 times the rate in these properly sited rural ststaions.
There has also been a huge decline in the number of temp stations worldwide. There were almost 16,000 stations in 1970, almost 12,000 in 1990 and now we are down to less than 6,000. Most of these 7000 stations lost were in the northern hemisphere particularly in Siberia and Canada as cost cutting moves.
Also see how NASA scientist and global warming proponent, James Hanson, manipulated data to show that 1998 was the warmest year on record. After the error was exposed in his 2011 report, the correct findings showed 1998 to be cooler than 1934.
Now I'm not saying that there is or is not global warming but I do know both sides have an agenda and data has been changed/manipulated in away that we cannot even get accurate numbers. I think the 97% of scientists agree claim is bogus. I'd like to see the number of scientist that agree that are NOT getting paid large sums of money to validate a government's position on global warming. Scientist start with a conclusion in mind and then create algorithims and computer models to "prove" their already established position. Not hard to do if you know how to write a computer program and input only data that goes in your favor.
There is no "consensus of evidence" and there is nothing to "disprove"
The earth is not warming, there is no actual data to show it is warming, and suggesting that 97% of anyone believing in a theory is proof the Earth is warming is laughable.
I do love the fact that the left thinks 15 years of temperature data indicates a trend regarding a planet that is over 4 billion years old.
That's hilarious.
Not only is there a consensus maybe it is time you actually read what the consensus has said.. instead of continuing to whine, like you have in this thread..
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
There is no "consensus of evidence" and there is nothing to "disprove"
The earth is not warming, there is no actual data to show it is warming, and suggesting that 97% of anyone believing in a theory is proof the Earth is warming is laughable.
I do love the fact that the left thinks 15 years of temperature data indicates a trend regarding a planet that is over 4 billion years old.
That's hilarious.
Not only is there a consensus maybe it is time you actually read what the consensus has said.. instead of continuing to whine, like you have in this thread..
My big issue with the global warming alarmists is the use of incorrect or even fraudulent data to "prove" their position on global warming.
Tempature stations is a good example. The historical standard is to have these stations 100 feet from obstacles that can effect temp and the site must be surrounded by grass or natural soil. A study by former meterologist Andrew Watts showed that 90% of the 1400 temp stations in the US are sited incorrectly (next to buildings or on asphalt), in a way that increases temp readings by 1.8 to 9 degrees. 64% of the stations had a warming bias of at least 3.6 degrees.
Another issue is the way global climate scientists change/adjust the data of the rural stations. In a study along with it's follow-up study in August 2012, the raw mean temps in the correctly sited rural stations were found to be .26 degrees per decade below the adjusted temps for poorly sited stations. Instead of adjusting the urban stations downward, the scientist adjusted the rural findings upward resulting in a false increase of nearly 3 times the rate in these properly sited rural ststaions.
There has also been a huge decline in the number of temp stations worldwide. There were almost 16,000 stations in 1970, almost 12,000 in 1990 and now we are down to less than 6,000. Most of these 7000 stations lost were in the northern hemisphere particularly in Siberia and Canada as cost cutting moves.
Also see how NASA scientist and global warming proponent, James Hanson, manipulated data to show that 1998 was the warmest year on record. After the error was exposed in his 2011 report, the correct findings showed 1998 to be cooler than 1934.
Now I'm not saying that there is or is not global warming but I do know both sides have an agenda and data has been changed/manipulated in away that we cannot even get accurate numbers. I think the 97% of scientists agree claim is bogus. I'd like to see the number of scientist that agree that are NOT getting paid large sums of money to validate a government's position on global warming. Scientist start with a conclusion in mind and then create algorithims and computer models to "prove" their already established position. Not hard to do if you know how to write a computer program and input only data that goes in your favor.
My big issue with the global warming alarmists is the use of incorrect or even fraudulent data to "prove" their position on global warming.
Tempature stations is a good example. The historical standard is to have these stations 100 feet from obstacles that can effect temp and the site must be surrounded by grass or natural soil. A study by former meterologist Andrew Watts showed that 90% of the 1400 temp stations in the US are sited incorrectly (next to buildings or on asphalt), in a way that increases temp readings by 1.8 to 9 degrees. 64% of the stations had a warming bias of at least 3.6 degrees.
Another issue is the way global climate scientists change/adjust the data of the rural stations. In a study along with it's follow-up study in August 2012, the raw mean temps in the correctly sited rural stations were found to be .26 degrees per decade below the adjusted temps for poorly sited stations. Instead of adjusting the urban stations downward, the scientist adjusted the rural findings upward resulting in a false increase of nearly 3 times the rate in these properly sited rural ststaions.
There has also been a huge decline in the number of temp stations worldwide. There were almost 16,000 stations in 1970, almost 12,000 in 1990 and now we are down to less than 6,000. Most of these 7000 stations lost were in the northern hemisphere particularly in Siberia and Canada as cost cutting moves.
Also see how NASA scientist and global warming proponent, James Hanson, manipulated data to show that 1998 was the warmest year on record. After the error was exposed in his 2011 report, the correct findings showed 1998 to be cooler than 1934.
Now I'm not saying that there is or is not global warming but I do know both sides have an agenda and data has been changed/manipulated in away that we cannot even get accurate numbers. I think the 97% of scientists agree claim is bogus. I'd like to see the number of scientist that agree that are NOT getting paid large sums of money to validate a government's position on global warming. Scientist start with a conclusion in mind and then create algorithims and computer models to "prove" their already established position. Not hard to do if you know how to write a computer program and input only data that goes in your favor.
Not only is there a consensus maybe it is time you actually read what the consensus has said.. instead of continuing to whine, like you have in this thread..
Global warming" is the only scientific theory that is an article of faith.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
Not only is there a consensus maybe it is time you actually read what the consensus has said.. instead of continuing to whine, like you have in this thread..
Global warming" is the only scientific theory that is an article of faith.
“Ninety-eight percent of scientists are saying one thing, 2% are saying something else,” Boxer said. “Yet we have endless money behind the 2% view. ... This isn’t a game. We’re playing with the lives of future generations.”
If we believe that global warming is real and we build cleaner energy plants and use alternative energy, that would be good. If we are wrong, we have cleaner land, air and water. Why the hell shouldn't we invest in cleaner energy?
Although we are NOT wrong, because climate change has been validated by NEARLY the ENTIRE RESPECTED scientific community
if people haven't noticed the drastic change in weather patterns over the past decade, they're either blind, stupid, or corrupt
97% is scientists can the claim that the climate is warming with empirical evidence.
You on the other hand have provided 0 evidence to refute such claim..
well I guess more and more scientists are re-thinking their previous position on global warming
0
Stiln's thread on July 18:
“Ninety-eight percent of scientists are saying one thing, 2% are saying something else,” Boxer said. “Yet we have endless money behind the 2% view. ... This isn’t a game. We’re playing with the lives of future generations.”
If we believe that global warming is real and we build cleaner energy plants and use alternative energy, that would be good. If we are wrong, we have cleaner land, air and water. Why the hell shouldn't we invest in cleaner energy?
Although we are NOT wrong, because climate change has been validated by NEARLY the ENTIRE RESPECTED scientific community
if people haven't noticed the drastic change in weather patterns over the past decade, they're either blind, stupid, or corrupt
Hot Forum Topics
