No warming for 16 years, says Met Office

formatting link

or

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Hogg
Loading thread data ...

"Killer bears" will be the new threat

Reply to
stuart noble

Actually depending on which exact data set you use, its anything from 16 years to 22 years of 'no significant warming'

Even the myth of the heat hiding in the oceans has been busted

formatting link

This is putting a whole industry at serious risk. Climate scientists and the whole green industry is poised on the brink of massive job cuts and layoffs, and even environmental journalists are having to find stories about 'stuff that has nothing to do with non-existent global warming'

Its a human tragedy unfolding here.

Climate scientists are a species at risk from lack of global warming.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Only just noticed the date of the article: October 2012! So it's old news. I was misled into thinking it was today's news by the date top RHS of the screen. Apologies to all

Not that that makes it any less of a fact. I see that Prof Jones is quoted as saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions about the plateau, despite the fact that it was a similar period on which the proposal of global warming was based.

A pity they couldn't have got a more flattering mug-shot of Prof Curry.

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Its on the nature site and the nasa site, but it seems people are arguing as to where the heat has gone. They had supposed into the very deep ocean, but that has not now been detected, and it seems that sea level is rising mainly due to the ice cap melt. The odd thing of course is that if there is more water and its more cos it melted, where is all the extra heat now? I'm sure they will find it. Its very interesting though, as the earth has always tried to even things out like some sort of self regulating system. Of course when it does go more than a certain amount we get Ice ages and very hot times, but for some odd reason it kind of ends up average. We are very fortunate to live on such a planet I think. Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

This article suggests the heat may have gone into the oceans:

"Earth?s oceans have absorbed more than 90% of the warming caused by greenhouse gases, researchers estimate, with the stored heat showing up as warmer seawater. But a new analysis suggests scientists may have underestimated the size of the heat sink in the upper ocean?which could have implications for researchers trying to understand the pace and scale of past warming."

formatting link

Reply to
Caecilius

They keep try8ing, but the latest data shows oceans cooling.

Occams razor says that AGW is bunk, dead finished, a neverwozza.

But too many careers are riding on it for it to not flap around like a headless chicken a bit longer/.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

According to what I have read, the uncertainties are so great that you can prove either, using the same set of data.

Reply to
Nightjar

Yes, after their "On A Plane" exploit.

Reply to
EricP

Meanwhile, due to supposedly inaccurate measurements in the past, the southern oceans may warming faster than we thought

formatting link

Reply to
Andy Burns

Ah the new Sciencetwist! The Guardian of the 'scientific' press! New Society New Satesman Old Lefty Bollocks.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

The truth is that the current models, never mind how fine the granularity or how many MIPS of computer are running them, are far too simple to use for extrapolating very far. You only have to look at the historical record on various timescales (centuries, millenia, 100k years, 1M years) to see the complexity of the real world.

The trouble with the apparently persuasive arguments like "most extreme since records began" is that records began in the little ice age.

Reply to
newshound

When they talk about records they vary in start dates from about 1900 to about 1980 depending on which record has just been busted.

A lot of the metrological records only started recently.

Reply to
dennis

we had serious floods here in 1968 (bridges washed away, etc), but apparently no records were kept.

Reply to
charles

Whatever, it's reporting LLNL's findings

Reply to
Andy Burns

Not that odd, actually. What is doing it (but not in some mystical, new-age, bull-shitty way) is life itself. As in the Gaia hypothesis.

Reply to
Tim Streater

In article ,

Reply to
Tim Streater

The Gaia hypothesis is just an example of the much older Le Chatelier's principle (circa 1900), but working on a global scale.

formatting link
formatting link

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Southern oceans warming faster than we realised; deep ocean water not warming at all; a 30 year cycle in the Atlantic holding back warming. And so the data and piecemeal theories keep coming!

But if any or all of this is true, why did the global temperatures suddenly rise in the 1980's, only to flatten off subsequently? A decent theory would embrace all the observed facts and accommodate new facts with little or no modification.

It just goes to show how little the climatologists understand about the global climate, and what a mess the current theory is in!

Reply to
Chris Hogg

Quick, apply for a grant for a grand unified warming theory ...

Reply to
Andy Burns

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.