2012 was warmest year in U.S. history

[FrolfGator]

Originally Posted by Burke

Second, there has been no GLOBAL warming for the last 16 years, according to the UK Met office, frequently quoted by the UN as its source of information for temperatures.

Someone should tell the Met office that, because they specifically say the warming trend HAS continued:

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2...-october-2012/

[oragator1]

I think it was 1998 which was an anomalous year with much higher temps than the years around it, we haven't caught up to 1998 yet. So those that don't believe in MMGW point to it and say the earth hasn't warmed, scientists look at the statistical smoothed line and say we are still warming, with that year as a clear statistical aberration.
I will cast my lot with the scientists, not because they are always right or don't sometimes have a bias, but because they are far and away the best people to make a scientific judgement on what's happening, and they overwhelmingly believe it's real.

[Dreamliner]

"It's real. It's REAL!"

*frantically looks for back door of church*

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by FrolfGator

Someone should tell the Met office that, because they specifically say the warming trend HAS continued:

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2...-october-2012/

We go thru this a lot here. The anti-global warming folks, Burke in particular, keep bringing out every Daily Mail story that announces global warming isn't happening. Usually, the Daily Mail quotes some study and then a day or two later, the authors of the study come out and say, no, that isn't what the study said.
In this case, a little more than a year ago, a writer with the Daily Mail said the Met Office concluded that global warming ended 15 years earlier. Then the Met Office came out said that's not what it concluded.
A year later, the same writer wrote a piece that said the Met Office concluded that global warming ended 16 years earlier. Once again, the Met Office had to respond and say it wasn't true.
That false story is what Burke is referring to.
It's all in this thread last October, which includes the Met Office explanations that the Daily Mail is, once again wrong.

link

[gator1986]

We're all going to die!!!

Jk guys were not...

[JerseyGator01]

Apparently these so-called scientists were keeping two sets of temp records. Guess which one was published.

CORRUPTION RULES!!!!!

[G8trGr8t]

2012-2013 is anticipated to be the highest solar max since 1958

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...steofsolarmax/

July 20, 2012: Forecasters say Solar Max is due in the year 2013. When it arrives, the peak of 11-year sunspot cycle will bring more solar flares, more coronal mass ejections, more geomagnetic storms and more auroras than we have experienced in quite some time.

but good news, cooling is coming

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...missed-it.html

Based on the movements of this cycle's prominences, Altrock says that an especially weak solar maximum took place in the sun's northern hemisphere around July last year (arxiv.org/abs/1209.2969).

Bernhard Fleck, project scientist for NASA's and the European Space Agency's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, calls the paper solid work, but adds that even if we missed the northern maximum, the southern hemisphere is still expected to put on a show.

According to Altrock, the southern prominences are still on the move, but slowly. If they continue at the current rate, he says, the south will not reach its maximum until February 2014.

Such a large asymmetry between hemispheres could be a sign of big changes ahead, says Steven Tobias, a mathematician at the University of Leeds, UK, who models what drives the sun's magnetic field. According to his models, such a situation precedes an extended quiet phase called a grand minimum. "Changes in symmetry are more indicative of going into a grand minimum than the strength of the cycle," he says.

Grand minima can last for decades. The previous one took place between 1645 and 1715, and has been linked to the little ice age in Europe. A new one might also cause localised cold periods, but many climate scientists see a silver lining to such a turn of events: a grand minimum offers ideal conditions for testing the effects of solar variability on Earth's climate (see "Our star's subtle influence").

that big yellow thingy in the sky is what changes our climate..

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

2012-2013 is anticipated to be the highest solar max since 1958

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...steofsolarmax/


but good news, cooling is coming

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...missed-it.html



that big yellow thingy in the sky is what changes our climate..

Climate scientists have always allowed for solar changes in their models, of course it's a major factor, the dispute has been the exact amount. But that doesn't mean man isn't having an effect, it's like saying man can't start forest fires because they often start naturally from lightning strikes. Just because something undergoes a natural process doesn't mean we can't impact it. And what they are saying there is that a minimum will give us the chance to further refine the models when we see the exact effect such an event has. It's good for science, and it's good for the planet to get a breather from the long term upswing.

[FrolfGator]

A repeat of the previous grand minima would be expected to provide a cooling of 0.3 degree-C; not enough to offset the expected 4 degree-C warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. And of course it would only be a temporary effect.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...grand-minimum/

[Dreamliner]

Quick! Let's spend trillions of dollars before the earth starts cooling!

[Itssaul]

When the planet was being forged in intense heat it was well over 500F now it's averaging in the 50's! Sounds like a cool day to me

[neisgator]

Originally Posted by oragator1

I think it was 1998 which was an anomalous year with much higher temps than the years around it, we haven't caught up to 1998 yet. So those that don't believe in MMGW point to it and say the earth hasn't warmed, scientists look at the statistical smoothed line and say we are still warming, with that year as a clear statistical aberration.
I will cast my lot with the scientists, not because they are always right or don't sometimes have a bias, but because they are far and away the best people to make a scientific judgement on what's happening, and they overwhelmingly believe it's real.

Good job. Cast it with the bought and paid for.
Brilliant

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by oragator1

I will cast my lot with the scientists, not because they are always right or don't sometimes have a bias, but because they are far and away the best people to make a scientific judgement on what's happening, and they overwhelmingly believe it's real.

Of course they believe it's real. Billions of dollars in government and corporate foundation grants demand they believe it's real. If the scientists stop believing it's real, the money will dry up almost overnight and many will either be out of a job in a bad economy or will see their research funding cut to pieces.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

- Upton Sinclair

Welcome to the New Amerika, where hard, honest work is for suckers. The real money is in government, crime, fraud, corruption, and selling out.

[oragator1]

And many on the other side have an agenda as well. Some have political reasons, some have been sponsored by the oil and gas industry, some realize that the few voices on the other side get a lot more attention for being contrarian, particularly from those who want that argument to be made.
Whatever percentage of honest people you ascribe to each side, there are still going to be more on the side of AGW.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by oragator1

Whatever percentage of honest people you ascribe to each side, there are still going to be more on the side of AGW.

Of course there's more on the side of AGW. That's where the most money is, and it's not even close.

What's fooling you is the corporate misdirection on the part of the energy industry. They have to make it appear as if they are opposed to the AGW agenda, when in reality, they are in full support of it. After all, it's the Rockefeller Foundation (think, Standard Oil interests) that has been pushing the AGW agenda right from the beginning. Even David Rockefeller's Club of Rome environmentalism-oriented think tank has published a book in support of the agenda and how important it is to their political agenda.

Are you familiar with Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby? Well, it's the same thing. AGW is a scam. We're talking full-on hoax.

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Of course there's more on the side of AGW. That's where the most money is, and it's not even close.

What's fooling you is the corporate misdirection on the part of the energy industry. They have to make it appear as if they are opposed to the AGW agenda, when in reality, they are in full support of it. After all, it's the Rockefeller Foundation (think, Standard Oil interests) that has been pushing the AGW agenda right from the beginning. Even David Rockefeller's Club of Rome environmentalism-oriented think tank has published a book in support of the agenda and how important it is to their political agenda.

Are you familiar with Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby? Well, it's the same thing. AGW is a scam. We're talking full-on hoax.

You misunderstood what I wrote in what you quoted. Even if the argument is that the majority of scientists who believe in AGW are faking it for money, the honest ones on the AGW side would still outnumber those on the other side who weren't beholden to their own interests as well, because they outnumber them overwhelmingly to start with and there are frauds and honest people on both sides. There was a study a couple of years ago that 97% of climate scientists agree that man is affecting the climate, so in order for your supposition to be right, over 95-96% of those would have to be embellishing for grant money, while no one on the other side would have ulterior motives. Both of those are unlikely, and anything short of that and a majority of scientists still believe it's real.

As for the Rockeller foundation, they have long been environmentalists so thats's not a surprise, they helped get Acadia and Grand Tetons national parks founded among others. But Exxon alone helped fund several dozen groups that were making the case against AGW, and seems to elicit no similar scrutiny or questioning of all of their positions from you or almost anyone who makes a similar argument. One side of a contentious debate almost never has a monopoly on nobility of cause.

[Burke]

From the Met office link:

"Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system."

All they've done is choose end points further back than 16 years in order to get a warming trend.

A few years ago, when people were noting that there had been no warming for 9 years, the AGW crowd was saying that you had to go back at least 15 years. Now that there has been none for 16 years, they're claiming that you have to go back many more years.

They have had to rewrite the entire climate history of the last 12-13 hundred years to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period to be taken seriously at all. And that revisionist history has been clouded by one scandal after another.

And now we have discovered a period during Roman times that was as warm as it is now.

The global warming campaign is just a leftist political campaign, science being corrupted by govt money and politics.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Burke

From the Met office link:

"Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system."

All they've done is choose end points further back than 16 years in order to get a warming trend.

A few years ago, when people were noting that there had been no warming for 9 years, the AGW crowd was saying that you had to go back at least 15 years. Now that there has been none for 16 years, they're claiming that you have to go back many more years.

They have had to rewrite the entire climate history of the last 12-13 hundred years to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period to be taken seriously at all. And that revisionist history has been clouded by one scandal after another.

And now we have discovered a period during Roman times that was as warm as it is now.

The global warming campaign is just a leftist political campaign, science being corrupted by govt money and politics.

ACtually, Burke, the Met Office very specifically says there has been an increase

[jimgata]

9 out of 10 sensors set up to measure temps in the USA, do not meet regulations set up to accurately measure the temps. Scients say they take this into consideration when reporting the temps. So nhey are actually guessing and are not completely accurate when reporting even a .1 increase in temps. These so called adjustments can be anything they want it to be.
I am sure 100 years ago technology was so advanced they could report the earths temp accurate. To make a statement that 2012 was the hottest ever is assinine.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by jimgata

9 out of 10 sensors set up to measure temps in the USA, do not meet regulations set up to accurately measure the temps. Scients say they take this into consideration when reporting the temps. So nhey are actually guessing and are not completely accurate when reporting even a .1 increase in temps. These so called adjustments can be anything they want it to be.
I am sure 100 years ago technology was so advanced they could report the earths temp accurate. To make a statement that 2012 was the hottest ever is assinine.

link?