Chemtrail Awareness
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Chemtrail Awareness

The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch and do nothing - Albert Einstein
 
HomePortalLatest imagesRegisterLog in
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 
Rechercher Advanced Search
Latest topics
March 2024
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
CalendarCalendar
Similar topics

 

 The REALLY inconvenient truths about global warming

Go down 
AuthorMessage
Admin
Admin



Posts : 8049
Join date : 2012-05-29
Location : Manchester UK

The REALLY inconvenient truths about global warming Empty
PostSubject: The REALLY inconvenient truths about global warming   The REALLY inconvenient truths about global warming Icon_minitimeSun 21 Oct 2012, 15:12

The REALLY inconvenient truths about global warming. Last week we
explosively revealed a 16-year 'pause' in rising temperatures -
triggering a bitter debate. You decide what the real facts are...


By
David Rose
PUBLISHED: 22:18, 20 October 2012

UPDATED: 11:22, 21 October 2012

Last week The Mail on Sunday
provoked an international storm by publishing a new official world
temperature graph showing there has been no global warming since 1997.

The figures came from a database called Hadcrut 4 and were issued by the
Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia
University.
We received
hundreds of responses from readers, who were overwhelmingly critical of
those climate change experts who believe that global warming is
inevitable.
But the Met
Office, whose lead was then followed by climate change campaigners,
accused The Mail on Sunday of cherry-picking data in order to mislead
readers. It even claimed it had not released a ‘report’, as we had
stated, although it put out the figures from which we drew our graph ten
days ago.


The REALLY inconvenient truths about global warming Article-2220722-15991380000005DC-937_634x813
The Mail on Sunday revealed figures which appeared to show a 16-year 'pause' in global warming

Another critic said that climate
expert Professor Judith Curry had protested at the way she was
represented in our report. However, Professor Curry, a former US
National Research Council Climate Research Committee member and the
author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers, responded: ‘A note to
defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16
years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office’s
statement .  .  . effectively refutes Mr Rose’s argument that there has
been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past
16 years.
‘Use this as an
opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know
and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from other
scientists who acknowledge the “pause”.’
The
Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming
has occurred recently: ‘We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a
very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.’

Here, we answer some of the key questions on climate change – and invite readers to make their own choice .  .  .
Q Is the world warming or not?



The REALLY inconvenient truths about global warming Article-2220722-1595E8AA000005DC-985_306x423
Expert Judith Curry

A The
Hadcrut 4 figures that show a ‘pause’ in warming lasting nearly 16
years are drawn from more than 3,000 measuring stations on land and at
sea. Hadcrut 4 is one of several similar global databases that reveal
the same thing: that since January 1997 there has been no statistically
significant warming of the Earth’s surface.
Between
1980 and the end of 1996, the planet warmed at a rate close to 0.2
degrees per decade. Since then, says the Met Office, the trend has been a
much lower 0.03 degrees per decade.
However,
world average temperature measurements are subject to an error of plus
or minus 0.1 degrees, while any attempt to calculate a trend for the
period 1997-2012 has an in-built statistical error of plus or minus 0.4
degrees. The claim that there has been any statistically significant
warming for the past 16 years is therefore unsustainable.
Q Why does it matter if the world is warming or not?

A For
years, the Government’s energy and climate policy has been dominated by
the belief that we need swift, drastic and expensive reductions in
carbon dioxide emissions to avert imminent catastrophe. In September,
The Guardian claimed there were ‘less than 50 months to avoid climate
disaster’.
These fears are based on computer models that show temperatures continuing to rise in step with levels of CO2.
The
2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) said: ‘For the next two decades, a warming of
about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade is projected for a range of
emission scenarios’ – a prediction it said was solid because this rate
of increase was already being observed.
But
while CO2 levels have continued to rise since 1997, warming has paused.
This leads Prof Curry to say the IPCC’s models are ‘incomplete’,
because they do not adequately account for natural factors such as
long-term ocean temperature cycles and a decline in solar output, which
have suppressed the warming effects of CO2.
The
Met Office and the CRU’s Professor Phil Jones say a ‘plateau’ of
between 15 and 17 years is to be expected. But if the warming does not
start again soon, the models will be open to challenge.
Q Did The Mail on Sunday ‘cherry-pick’ data to disguise an underlying warming trend?

A Some critics claim this newspaper misled readers by choosing start and end dates that hide the continued warming.
In
fact, we looked at the period since 1997 because that’s when the
previous warming trend stopped, and our graph ended in August 2012
because that is the last month for which Hadcrut 4 figures were
available.
In April, the
Met Office released figures up to the end of 2010 – an extremely warm
year – which meant it was able to say there had been a statistically
significant warming trend after 1997, albeit a very small one. However,
2011 and 2012 so far have been much cooler, meaning the trend has
disappeared. This may explain why the updated figures were issued last
week without a media fanfare.



The REALLY inconvenient truths about global warming Article-2220722-0E6B393B00000578-167_634x407
We need an energy strategy for both the short
and long term to save the polar bear, a species whose plight is often a
symbol of global warming

Q But isn’t it true that the science is ‘settled’?

A Some
scientists say the pause is illusory – if you strip out the effects of
El Nino (when the South Pacific gets unpredictably warmer by several
degrees), and La Nina (its cold counterpart), the underlying warming
trend remains. Both phenomena have a huge impact on world weather.
Other
experts point out one of the biggest natural factors behind the
plateau is the fact that in 2008 the temperature cycle in the Pacific
flipped from ‘warm mode’, in which it had been locked for the previous
40 years, to ‘cold mode’, meaning surface water temperatures fell. A
cold Pacific cycle causes fewer and weaker El Ninos, and more, stronger
La Ninas.
Prof Curry said
that stripping out these phenomena made ‘no physical sense’. She added
that natural phenomena and the CO2 greenhouse effect interact with each
other, and cannot meaningfully be separated. It’s not just that the
‘cold mode’ has partly caused the plateau.
According
to Prof Curry and others, the previous warm Pacific cycle and other
natural factors, such as a high solar output, accounted for some of the
warming seen before 1997 – some say at least half of it.
Other
scientists say that heat has somehow been absorbed by the waters deep
in the oceans. However, the evidence for this is contested, and there
are no historical records with which to compare recent deepwater
readings.
In the wake of the pause, the scientific ‘consensus’ looks much less settled than it did a few years ago.
Q When will warming start again?




The REALLY inconvenient truths about global warming Article-2220722-1599AAB2000005DC-706_306x423
Tim Yeo has a significant personal stake n the renewable energy industry

A
The truth is no one knows. It is likely that in the 2020s, the Atlantic
cycle – currently in warm mode – will also flip to cold, so that for
some years both the Pacific and Atlantic cycles will be cold at the same
time. When this happens, world temperatures may decline, as they did in
the Forties.
Prof Curry
said: ‘If we are currently in a plateau and possibly headed for cooling,
then sometime in the middle of the century we would likely see another
period with a large warming trend.’
She
added: ‘Because of natural variability, it is impossible to pinpoint
what 2100 would look like. The climate sensitivity to greenhouse warming
is still pretty uncertain, and it is not clear whether or to what
extent man-made factors will dominate the climate of this period.’
For
the world to be two degrees warmer in 2100 than it is now – as the IPCC
has predicted – warming would not only have to restart but also proceed
much faster than it has before.
Since 1880, temperatures have risen by around 0.75 degrees.
Q But isn’t the world still much warmer than at any time in recorded history?


A

Ever since it was published on the cover of the IPCC’s Third Assessment
report in 2001, the ‘hockey stick’ graph showing stable or declining
temperatures since the year 1000, followed by a steep rise in the 20th
Century, has been controversial. There were no thermometers in 1000, so
scientists use ‘proxy’ data from items such as tree rings, lake
sediments and ice cores.
The
hockey stick authors have also been accused of eliminating the
‘medieval warm period’ (MWP) at the end of the first millennium.
Two
new separate peer-reviewed studies, published in prestigious academic
journals last week, reinstated it. The first study, led by Bo
Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute, concluded: ‘The
level of warmth during the peak of the MWP in the second half of the
10th Century, equalled or slightly exceeded the mid-20th Century
warming.’
There was also a pronounced warming period in Roman times.
Q So where does that leave us?


A
Despite The Guardian’s bold claim that we have ‘50 months to save the
world’, other evidence suggests that there are still decades left in
which to plan an energy strategy driven by something other than panic.
In
Britain, in the short to medium term, that would mean building modern
‘dual cycle’ gas power stations, which produce very clean energy and,
unlike inefficient wind turbines, do not require subsidies to be
economic.
In the longer
term, we could be investing heavily in research into new forms of
zero-carbon power, such as nuclear fusion, which are much closer to
reality than most people realise.
Q
Surely we can leave it to our elected representatives to research all
the arguments thoroughly and then act accordingly with our taxes?



A
Tim
Yeo is the chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Energy and
Climate Change, which advises the Government on energy policy. Lord
Deben is chairman of the Government Climate Change Committee, which also
gives direct advice on emissions targets.
Both
Mr Yeo and Lord Deben have significant personal stakes in the
‘renewable’ energy industry, which benefits to the tune of billions of
pounds a year from wind subsidies.


Source:_

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html
Back to top Go down
 
The REALLY inconvenient truths about global warming
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Global Warming or The “New Ice Age”?
» BBC Global Dimming Documentary About Geoengineering & Global Warming
» Latest global warming scare: CO2 said to set “record” even as latest data show NO warming taking place

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Chemtrail Awareness :: News & Events Around The World-
Jump to: