"The Met Office stresses that the work is experimental and that it still stands by its longer-term projections.
"These forecast significant warming over the course of this century.
"The forecasts are all based on a comparison with the average global temperature over the period 1971-2000.
"The earlier model had projected that the period 2012-16 would be 0.54C above that long-term average – within a range of uncertainty from 0.36-0.72C.
"By contrast the new model, known as HadGEM3, gives a rise about one-fifth lower than that of 0.43C – within a range of 0.28-0.59.This would be only slightly higher that the record year of 1998 – in which the Pacific Ocean’s El Nino effect was thought to have added more warming.
"If the forecast is accurate, the result would be that the global average temperature would have remained relatively static for about two decade."
Note that the Met is claiming warming if you use a comparison that includes a lot of older temperatures: to wit:
"The forecasts are all based on a comparison with the average global temperature over the period 1971-2000."
But if you compare their predictions to the temperature in 1998, you have almost no warming for about two decades.
If you want to know what the temperature is doing now, you look at what it's doing now, not compare it with temperatures as far back as 40 years.
Note this admission:
"An apparent standstill in global temperatures is used by critics of efforts to tackle climate change as evidence that the threat has been exaggerated."
An "apparent standstill" is being concealed by comparing the period to another period when it was cooler.
Just another way of concealing almost no warming being predicted by playing with end points that don't include that period.
All they're doing is claiming that there is going to be a lot more warming this century because there was warming during the last part of the last century and in spite of the fact that they can see almost no warming for the first 20 years of this century.
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Yes, like the page I linked to said, there were initial concerns of cooling based only on Northern hemisphere data and concerns over sulfer-based pollution. That was the initial hypothesis. Once scientists looked into it, they determined that the actual trend on the global scale was warming. By the 70s, the warming theory was accepted by about 66% of the climate science community. 40 years later, will improvements in tools, techniques and data the warming theory is now accepted by 97% of the climate science community. That's a sign of good science.
As for the second source, Time magazine is not a scientific publication.
That's why they now wail about "climate change" instead of "global warming."
They don't have a clue, but you can damn well bet that something is going to happen.
I will repeat it here for the 20th time probably until it finally gets accepted, it was Frank Luntz in a now infamous memo to conservative lawmakers who popularized "Climate Change" because it sounded less scary and implied a natural process. This is part of the memo:
Quote:
The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.
"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."
The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".
If you want to know what the temperature is doing now, you look at what it's doing now, not compare it with temperatures as far back as 40 years.
Sorry, that's just nonsense. You can't look at short pieces of the data, because in the short term climate isn't just affected by CO2 but also by other issues such as ocean-based oscillation. You have to look at the larger data set to see trend lines.
Yes, like the page I linked to said, there were initial concerns of cooling based only on Northern hemisphere data and concerns over sulfer-based pollution. That was the initial hypothesis. Once scientists looked into it, they determined that the actual trend on the global scale was warming. By the 70s, the warming theory was accepted by about 66% of the climate science community. 40 years later, will improvements in tools, techniques and data the warming theory is now accepted by 97% of the climate science community. That's a sign of good science.
As for the second source, Time magazine is not a scientific publication.
It indicates exactly what the popular trend was with scientific research in the 1970's.
And notice they are also trying to cover up their footprints on global cooling and pretend that never really happened.
There were published articles about the survey of climate science literature and quantifying the amount that proposed global cooling vs. warming. Dug up old references and cited them. Ludicrous to call it a cover up when they were bringing up fresh citations to all those papers.
If you disagree with the conclusions drawn from those surveys, that said that acceptance of global warming over cooling in the climate science community was 66%, feel free to perform and publish your own study. Pro-tip: digging up a couple cooling papers and saying GOTCHA doesn't cut it. We KNOW there were people hypothesizing cooling; the existing surveys cited those papers. The question is whether that was majority view or not.
The record's out there. Old journals, books, microfiche, what-have-you. Where is the contradictory survey? The one that cites all the "warming" publications vs. the "cooling", and shows that "cooling" was the consensus view at the time?
There were published articles about the survey of climate science literature and quantifying the amount that proposed global cooling vs. warming. Dug up old references and cited them. Ludicrous to call it a cover up when they were bringing up fresh citations to all those papers.
If you disagree with the conclusions drawn from those surveys, that said that acceptance of global warming over cooling in the climate science community was 66%, feel free to perform and publish your own study. Pro-tip: digging up a couple cooling papers and saying GOTCHA doesn't cut it. We KNOW there were people hypothesizing cooling; the existing surveys cited those papers. The question is whether that was majority view or not.
Scientists don't "believe in" this or that, they follow the evidence.
Yes, kind of like religious people do.
Quote:
They don't "believe in" evolution, but rather acknowledge it as fact and have modeled all of modern medical science around it. Anyone "believing" in something based on faith rather than logic isn't a scientist.
Well, then your scientists aren't really scientists and maybe you shouldn't be forming your reality based on their beliefs.
Birth control and stop propping up 3rd world countries. The more we try to help advance them, the more we destroy our planet.
No more meds for high blood pressure, no cancer treatment and no life support.
Save the planet through survival of the fittest.
And we can always leave you and your kind on an ice flow in the arctic in January. It's still cold enough to take care of that problem. Polar bears need to eat too.
cooling warming cooling warming
Linear Mode
