zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Aug 29, 2013 0:11:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 29, 2013 2:05:09 GMT
What La Nina?  ?? |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Aug 29, 2013 3:09:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 29, 2013 4:37:29 GMT
the way is being paved for AR5 |
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Aug 29, 2013 15:32:10 GMT
Exactly. Just wanted to report what is in a newspaper regarded as reasonably intelligent in the UK - except it does
have AGW leanings. Worrying if people take their news, especially concerning things not immediately important to
them, in soundbites.
Remains to be seen what the Syria situation will conveniently obscure.....
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 30, 2013 1:25:19 GMT
Take the multi century rise from the Little Ice Age, add to that rise the effect of a positive PDO and there is very little left to blame on CO2. That little left could easily be due to fudging old data (New Zealand is a really good example of that) or even to a slow drop in humidity and reduction in enthalpy. There is every chance that the entire scare is based on totally natural variation and that CO2 has had no part to play in it.
In the meantime the politicians who were aiming to catch the wave of global warming and make their fortunes and achieve global governance are looking like surfers paddling like mad as they just miss the wave.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 30, 2013 2:02:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 25, 2013 2:45:01 GMT
www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/stratospheric-water-vapor-decline-credited-with-slowing-global-warming"If global warming has triggered the decrease in stratospheric water vapor seen since 2000, it could mean that the climate models have predicted too much global warming, since they don't predict that such a negative feedback exists. On the other hand, if this is a natural cycle, we can expect the recent flattening in global temperatures to average out in the long run, with a return to steeper increases in temperature in the coming decades. Climate models currently do a poor job modeling the complex dynamics of water vapor in the stratosphere, and are not much help figuring out what's going on. Complicating the issue is the fact that about 15% of all thunderstorms capable of delivering water vapor into the stratosphere are generated by tropical cyclones (Rosenlof and Reid, 2008), and tropical cyclones are not well-treated by climate models. We also have to factor in the impact of stratospheric ozone loss, which acts to cool the lower stratosphere. This effect should gradually decrease in future decades as CFC levels decline, though. The stratosphere is a devilishly complicated place that can have a significant impact on global climate change, and we are many years from understanding what is going on there."
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 25, 2013 4:12:05 GMT
www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/stratospheric-water-vapor-decline-credited-with-slowing-global-warming"If global warming has triggered the decrease in stratospheric water vapor seen since 2000, it could mean that the climate models have predicted too much global warming, since they don't predict that such a negative feedback exists. On the other hand, if this is a natural cycle, we can expect the recent flattening in global temperatures to average out in the long run, with a return to steeper increases in temperature in the coming decades. Climate models currently do a poor job modeling the complex dynamics of water vapor in the stratosphere, and are not much help figuring out what's going on. Complicating the issue is the fact that about 15% of all thunderstorms capable of delivering water vapor into the stratosphere are generated by tropical cyclones (Rosenlof and Reid, 2008), and tropical cyclones are not well-treated by climate models. We also have to factor in the impact of stratospheric ozone loss, which acts to cool the lower stratosphere. This effect should gradually decrease in future decades as CFC levels decline, though. The stratosphere is a devilishly complicated place that can have a significant impact on global climate change, and we are many years from understanding what is going on there." After tens of thousands of "peer reviewed" science papers and trillions of dollars spent on government agencies/universities/institutions, claiming the future can be predicted by knowing only a fraction of what drives the climate, and only understanding a fraction of that......the reality is the experts truly don't know diddly squat. The entire AGW climate science community, fueled by the IPCC, is one big scam. Steve McIntyre exposes their lies well. climateaudit.org/2013/09/24/two-minutes-to-midnight/ |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 25, 2013 5:43:40 GMT
www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/stratospheric-water-vapor-decline-credited-with-slowing-global-warming"If global warming has triggered the decrease in stratospheric water vapor seen since 2000, it could mean that the climate models have predicted too much global warming, since they don't predict that such a negative feedback exists. On the other hand, if this is a natural cycle, we can expect the recent flattening in global temperatures to average out in the long run, with a return to steeper increases in temperature in the coming decades. Climate models currently do a poor job modeling the complex dynamics of water vapor in the stratosphere, and are not much help figuring out what's going on. Complicating the issue is the fact that about 15% of all thunderstorms capable of delivering water vapor into the stratosphere are generated by tropical cyclones (Rosenlof and Reid, 2008), and tropical cyclones are not well-treated by climate models. We also have to factor in the impact of stratospheric ozone loss, which acts to cool the lower stratosphere. This effect should gradually decrease in future decades as CFC levels decline, though. The stratosphere is a devilishly complicated place that can have a significant impact on global climate change, and we are many years from understanding what is going on there." After tens of thousands of "peer reviewed" science papers and trillions of dollars spent on government agencies/universities/institutions, claiming the future can be predicted by knowing only a fraction of what drives the climate, and only understanding a fraction of that......the reality is the experts truly don't know diddly squat. The entire AGW climate science community, fueled by the IPCC, is one big scam. Steve McIntyre exposes their lies well. climateaudit.org/2013/09/24/two-minutes-to-midnight/There's going to be hell to pay for all the man-made global warming doom and gloom, this, as global cooling sets in, as I've continued to forecast for years now. Governments will be downright pissed off that they were bamboozled into believing the climate modelling lies of AGW and as the world cools fast (which is also what I am forecasting will happen between 2019-2023) and when global cooling is officially recognized and accepted as being underway, even more governments will demand answers and be even more pissed off. And global cooling IS coming people. I was the forecaster who made the last ENSO call, and the next ENSO will be a very good one for climate watchers worldwide. It will be on the cold and wet end - a deep La Nina - and in a brand new climate regime: global cooling. |
|
