Comments on: Has Global Warming “Stopped”? http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Quality Impacts of Global Warming and Climate Change « Quality and Innovation http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833&cpage=1#comment-11522 Quality Impacts of Global Warming and Climate Change « Quality and Innovation Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:39:53 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833#comment-11522 [...] “extreme events” happen more and more often? Are we really succumbing to global warming, or has global warming stopped, putting us on the threshold of a new ice age? I’m not interested in assessing the scientific [...] [...] “extreme events” happen more and more often? Are we really succumbing to global warming, or has global warming stopped, putting us on the threshold of a new ice age? I’m not interested in assessing the scientific [...]

]]> By: Adder http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833&cpage=1#comment-11515 Adder Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:22:30 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833#comment-11515 Ok, thanks! Lucia (26 Dec) shows the trendines, and they are very close to the predictions. Ok, thanks! Lucia (26 Dec) shows the trendines, and they are very close to the predictions.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833&cpage=1#comment-11514 Roger Pielke, Jr. Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:56:02 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833#comment-11514 Adder, see: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/ipcc-temperature-and-sea-level-predictions-2008-update-4794 Even better, see: http://rankexploits.com/musings/ Adder, see:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/ipcc-temperature-and-sea-level-predictions-2008-update-4794

Even better, see:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/

]]> By: Adder http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833&cpage=1#comment-11513 Adder Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:45:17 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833#comment-11513 Interesting. So, just to be able to compare predictions with actual trends then, how would the trendlines of the datasets look like? Interesting. So, just to be able to compare predictions with actual trends then, how would the trendlines of the datasets look like?

]]> By: Paul Biggs http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833&cpage=1#comment-11502 Paul Biggs Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:15:17 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833#comment-11502 The UK Met Office didn't predict 10 or more years of non-warming - they predicted 2007 to beat the global average temperature record of 1998 - and they were WRONG! They are also pretty useless at predicting weather a few months or weeks in advance: http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/mystic-met-a-review-of-uk-met-office-predictions-and-statements/ I'm forced to conclude that their weather and climate models are pretty useless. The UK Met Office didn’t predict 10 or more years of non-warming – they predicted 2007 to beat the global average temperature record of 1998 – and they were WRONG! They are also pretty useless at predicting weather a few months or weeks in advance:

http://climateresearchnews.com/2008/12/mystic-met-a-review-of-uk-met-office-predictions-and-statements/

I’m forced to conclude that their weather and climate models are pretty useless.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833&cpage=1#comment-11498 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:52:58 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833#comment-11498 18, yes, thanks. Now corrected! 18, yes, thanks. Now corrected!

]]> By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833&cpage=1#comment-11496 Mark Bahner Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:11:40 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833#comment-11496 Hi Roger, "Under this definition, it is obvious that global temperatures have not increased over the past 8, 11 or 28 years (depending on your dataset and definition of increase, see below;-)." You mean 18 years (not 28), don't you? You're referring to 1990 to 2008, correct? Mark Hi Roger,

“Under this definition, it is obvious that global temperatures have not increased over the past 8, 11 or 28 years (depending on your dataset and definition of increase, see below;-).”

You mean 18 years (not 28), don’t you? You’re referring to 1990 to 2008, correct?

Mark

]]> By: tarpon http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833&cpage=1#comment-11495 tarpon Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:07:36 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833#comment-11495 When does real science resume? And should it not be totally open science, no hidden data, no secret formulas, all, everything out in the open, available on the Internet and subject to the community. I think two things have reared their ugly heads in this quest for political science, the publication racket, and the grant racket. They need to both be removed from biasing science. How many grants have been given out with the specific purpose of trying to prove AGW, instead of doing pure science. I for one am appalled at what has been allowed to happen to science, all in the name of trying to prove the unprovable. Ice ages come and go, anyone want to tell me why? or how that has happened for the last 5 million years or so? When does real science resume? And should it not be totally open science, no hidden data, no secret formulas, all, everything out in the open, available on the Internet and subject to the community.

I think two things have reared their ugly heads in this quest for political science, the publication racket, and the grant racket. They need to both be removed from biasing science.

How many grants have been given out with the specific purpose of trying to prove AGW, instead of doing pure science.

I for one am appalled at what has been allowed to happen to science, all in the name of trying to prove the unprovable. Ice ages come and go, anyone want to tell me why? or how that has happened for the last 5 million years or so?

]]> By: Jim Clarke http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833&cpage=1#comment-11494 Jim Clarke Thu, 01 Jan 2009 05:00:58 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833#comment-11494 Climatologists who believe that natural climate variations are large compared to the human influence have been predicting the current trend in global cooling since the early 1990s, citing ocean circulation cycles as the cause of both much of the observed warming and cooling over the last 110 years. They have been roundly dismissed and generally vilified because they could not completely describe how the mechanism worked. Now we have the proclaimation that 'natural variability' will 'mask' the warming for about 10 years, followed by rapid warming. What is the mechanism that produces this effect? I know of no natural cycles that operate on 10 year periods. Until the planet stopped warming and started to cool a bit, the global warming folks simple dismissed any mention of ocean induced climate cycles. Now they embrace them to explain the cooling, but refuse to acknowledge that if natural variability can cause cooling, then it must also be responsible for some of the warming. The logical inconsistancy in the AGW arguments are profound, yet whole sections of the scientific community turn a blind eye! Yes...on a decadal time scale...global warming has stopped. On an annual time scale, global cooling has started. That is what the data indicates. One may argue that global warming may continue at some later date, but one can not argue that it is warming now! Such arguments should be logically coherent and not comprised of arbitrary numbers seemingly pulled out of a policy hat! In this case, the politician is actually speaking more factually than the scientists! Climatologists who believe that natural climate variations are large compared to the human influence have been predicting the current trend in global cooling since the early 1990s, citing ocean circulation cycles as the cause of both much of the observed warming and cooling over the last 110 years. They have been roundly dismissed and generally vilified because they could not completely describe how the mechanism worked.

Now we have the proclaimation that ‘natural variability’ will ‘mask’ the warming for about 10 years, followed by rapid warming. What is the mechanism that produces this effect? I know of no natural cycles that operate on 10 year periods.

Until the planet stopped warming and started to cool a bit, the global warming folks simple dismissed any mention of ocean induced climate cycles. Now they embrace them to explain the cooling, but refuse to acknowledge that if natural variability can cause cooling, then it must also be responsible for some of the warming. The logical inconsistancy in the AGW arguments are profound, yet whole sections of the scientific community turn a blind eye!

Yes…on a decadal time scale…global warming has stopped. On an annual time scale, global cooling has started. That is what the data indicates. One may argue that global warming may continue at some later date, but one can not argue that it is warming now! Such arguments should be logically coherent and not comprised of arbitrary numbers seemingly pulled out of a policy hat!

In this case, the politician is actually speaking more factually than the scientists!

]]> By: Paul Biggs http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833&cpage=1#comment-11493 Paul Biggs Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:27:52 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4833#comment-11493 And, where and what is the 'scientific consensus?' To the best of my knowledge, no one has obtained an individual signed statement from each of the 2500 IPCC participants setting out their views. Sure, we know what 50 or 60 lead authors say and we know, for example, that the consensus on the link between hurricanes and global warming existed only in Trenberth's head, not in the literature. Furthermore, Pachauri recently said, "I refuse to accept that a few papers are in any way going to influence the long-term projections the IPCC has come up with.” So it seems that the IPCC isn't set up to accept anything other than warming driven by man-made CO2. And, where and what is the ’scientific consensus?’ To the best of my knowledge, no one has obtained an individual signed statement from each of the 2500 IPCC participants setting out their views. Sure, we know what 50 or 60 lead authors say and we know, for example, that the consensus on the link between hurricanes and global warming existed only in Trenberth’s head, not in the literature.

Furthermore, Pachauri recently said, “I refuse to accept that a few papers are in any way going to influence the long-term projections the IPCC has come up with.” So it seems that the IPCC isn’t set up to accept anything other than warming driven by man-made CO2.

]]>