An inconveniant truth for the Tree huggers?

[looney]

I have heard that all the climate change models have "Gone wrong", all of em including NASA'a. Well the ones based on global warming due to Carbon, the ones based on solar cycles predictions are holding up over the last year or so. The Tree huggers are calling it a blip.

Anyone else heard about this or can elaborate? My source is reliable but I think its worth throwing up for debate.



The Solar cycles models predict 8 years of cooling.

 

[looney]

Where have all the commie environmentalists gone?

LETS BE AVIN YOU!!!!!!!

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I have heard that all the climate change models have "Gone wrong", all of em including NASA'a. Well the ones based on global warming due to Carbon, the ones based on solar cycles predictions are holding up over the last year or so. The Tree huggers are calling it a blip.

Anyone else heard about this or can elaborate? My source is reliable but I think its worth throwing up for debate.



The Solar cycles models predict 8 years of cooling.

What is your source ( research matter). Who wrote it, who commissioned it and who bankrolled ... oh and is it based on primary or secondary data?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

It's a tricky one - it is true that over the last 10 years there has now been no increase in global temperatures.. The IPPC forecast models predicted a decadal increase in temperature +0.2C. Therefore on the face of it there appears to be a discrepancy.

However, the argument put forward is that other factors such as ENSO (El Nino Season Oscillation), which is the occurrence of El Nino and La Nina will have a larger localised effect on the global temperatures.

In fact looking back 10 years from now may be an incorrect 'window' as 1998 was a strong El Nino year, which meant it was (one of?) the warmest years globally on record, so clearly not a 'great' year to start a trend.

The current IPPC view is that once the El Nino 'signature' has worked its way out of the system we will see renewed increases in temperature globally, which may start soon.

The alternate view is based on the fact that the lull has been retro-fitted into the models to cover up for the failure of the warming to kick in as predicted. Also, the long delay in solar cycle 25 starting (hence a very quiet sun) means that the energy output from the sun is lower (not by much, though). Some people are drawing an anologue between this and the sun spot free years of the Maunder Minimum (little Ice Age) when the global temperature dropped alogn with solar activity. These people argue that we are in fact on the verge of a possible repeat of this, with far more dangerous consequences than a warming period.

The sceptics see it as a ploy to manipulate us into paying more taxes to counter a non-threat.

The true test will be the next 5-10 years, as all global warming models show a rapid increase globally over the period, so if it doesn't happen, then all bets are off.

I personally, despite being reasonably knowledgable in the area remain on the fence... so I guess I'm a sceptic / heretic... so be it

 

[looney]

I wish I could elaborate but it just came from an old friend from uni who spoke spoke to someone in their Environmental Science Dept.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I have heard that all the climate change models have "Gone wrong", all of em including NASA'a. Well the ones based on global warming due to Carbon, the ones based on solar cycles predictions are holding up over the last year or so. The Tree huggers are calling it a blip.

Anyone else heard about this or can elaborate? My source is reliable but I think its worth throwing up for debate.



The Solar cycles models predict 8 years of cooling.

I have installed a low energy light bulb in my breakfast room. Easy - global warming averted, and it's down to me !

 

[looney]

It's a tricky one - it is true that over the last 10 years there has now been no increase in global temperatures.. The IPPC forecast models predicted a decadal increase in temperature +0.2C. Therefore on the face of it there appears to be a discrepancy.

However, the argument put forward is that other factors such as ENSO (El Nino Season Oscillation), which is the occurrence of El Nino and La Nina will have a larger localised effect on the global temperatures.

In fact looking back 10 years from now may be an incorrect 'window' as 1998 was a strong El Nino year, which meant it was (one of?) the warmest years globally on record, so clearly not a 'great' year to start a trend.

The current IPPC view is that once the El Nino 'signature' has worked its way out of the system we will see renewed increases in temperature globally, which may start soon.

The alternate view is based on the fact that the lull has been retro-fitted into the models to cover up for the failure of the warming to kick in as predicted. Also, the long delay in solar cycle 25 starting (hence a very quiet sun) means that the energy output from the sun is lower (not by much, though). Some people are drawing an anologue between this and the sun spot free years of the Maunder Minimum (little Ice Age) when the global temperature dropped alogn with solar activity. These people argue that we are in fact on the verge of a possible repeat of this, with far more dangerous consequences than a warming period.

The sceptics see it as a ploy to manipulate us into paying more taxes to counter a non-threat.

The true test will be the next 5-10 years, as all global warming models show a rapid increase globally over the period, so if it doesn't happen, then all bets are off.

I personally, despite being reasonably knowledgable in the area remain on the fence... so I guess I'm a sceptic / heretic... so be it

Sounds quite informed, all I know is that the older the predictions the less acurate they have prooved to be, which may or may not mean something.


I'm sceptical coss of the sort of people banging on about it given how successful their last idea was(communism).

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I'm just in the process of getting a better summary of the picture from a colleague of mine on a pertinent forum... I'll report back.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Even if there did happen to be evidence to the contrary - Would the world not be a better place if people drove less (less fumes in City centres), we recycled more instead of burying it, stop wasting so much food etc etc?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Even if there did happen to be evidence to the contrary - Would the world not be a better place if people drove less (less fumes in City centres), we recycled more instead of burying it, stop wasting so much food etc etc?

Completely - YES. But it depends if that is achieved by punitive taxation, innovation or a mix of the 2.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Global warming - total myth

Incorrect... Anthroprogenic (Man Made) Global Warning perhaps - still open for debate.. but Global Warming has been recorded throughout this century, with rapid increases up to 1998. It's the cause which is still (just about) open for debate...

 

[Papa Lazarou]

If you want to read about an opposing view... this site is worth a look.

http://www.solarclimate.co.uk/

It supports the solar cause for the current temperature variations - including the possible cooling trend.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Completely - YES. But it depends if that is achieved by punitive taxation, innovation or a mix of the 2.

I think society as a whole are capable of taking much more responsibility than they currently do. Going green can be cheap. We also need some politicians to grow some stones and push large corporations towards minimising waste (packaging etc.). We have begun to attack the construction industry, so I do not see why other industries should not have their hands forced. Obviously, there is going to be an eventual knock on effect to the consumer.

Global warming - total myth

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Even if there did happen to be evidence to the contrary - Would the world not be a better place if people drove less (less fumes in City centres), we recycled more instead of burying it, stop wasting so much food etc etc?

Absolutely, this has been my opinion for a while. Even if fossil fuels were plentiful, and cheap, renewables would still be a better option. Unfortunately, unless there is a specific problem, there is little will to change anything.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I think society as a whole are capable of taking much more responsibility than they currently do. Going green can be cheap.

As I said, nobody is disputing the fact that global temperature have risen, some people are still not convinced on the cause, or in fact the degree of effect.

The process by which CO2 causing warming is agreed by most, so maybe the point is, how much of the rise we saw last century is down to CO2, how much is down to solar cycle and sun spot activity or perhaps some other driver (surface albedo, cloud cover etc).

Which data set does that graph represent, Hadley, GISS, NOAA?

Papa

 

[seagulls4ever]

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Next decade 'may see no warming'

 

[Barrel of Fun]

As I said, nobody is disputing the fact that global temperature have risen, some people are still not convinced on the cause, or in fact the degree of effect.

The process by which CO2 causing warming is agreed by most, so maybe the point is, how much of the rise we saw last century is down to CO2, how much is down to solar cycle and sun spot activity or perhaps some other driver (surface albedo, cloud cover etc).

Which data set does that graph represent, Hadley, GISS, NOAA?

Papa

I think it is NOAA, but not entirely sure. There was not a reference in the New Scientist.

Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO<SUB>2</SUB> does not cause warming - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

I just don't think we should leave it to chance and we can make positive changes even if the increases are predominantly caused by solar activity or something beyond our own control.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I think it is NOAA, but not entirely sure. There was not a reference in the New Scientist.

Climate myths: The cooling after 1940 shows CO<SUB>2</SUB> does not cause warming - climate-change - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

I just don't think we should leave it to chance and we can make positive changes even if the increases are predominantly caused by solar activity or something beyond our own control.

I agree... any move away from reliance upon / use of fossil fuels has to be good; and the same applies to our profligate use of all resources.

 

[maffew]

Global warming - total myth

what an excellent contribution to the debate, now pipe down the grown ups are talking