Global Warming in Last 15 Years Insignificant, U.K.'s Top Climate Scientist Admits

[911fever]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/global-warming-insignificant-years-admits-uks-climate-scientist/?test=latestnews

haha wow controversial.
Global Warming is full of holes, its not even funny, especially after the climate scandals!

[VaN_HaMMeRSTeiN]

Hooray another thread where a dead horse is beaten. :thumbsup:

[Sil80_D]

:dunno:

[Diocletian]

LOL from the Fox news website hey? That's some quality reporting.

[schocker]

Originally posted by Diocletian
LOL from the Fox news website hey? That's some quality reporting.

What was their source :facepalm:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

[ZenOps]

If you want to look at it from a pure scientific view.

http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/statistical_significance.htm

Global warming from carbon pollution is statistically insignificant (19 times out of 20) However - global cooling from volcanic eruptions is significant. Mount Pinatubo caused a 0.5 degree drop in itself.

[Mar]

Isn't this common sense? Global warming/cooling periods last 6000 - 10000 years so a lifetime of data is irrelevant.

[nonlinear]

argh. beyond's science experts are at it again. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

here is the quote:

"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

just because the data over the last 15 years is "insignificant" doesn't mean that climate change isn't happening. ("significance" has a very particular meaning in statistics - go look it up before trying to say that an insignificant trend over a short period means climate change isn't happening). also, any of you who have taken 2 or more university-level stats courses should understand why you wouldn't expect significance at 95% for slowly increasing temperature data over such a short period. increase the period, of course, and the results become significant - as you will see if you read the original interview, where the quote isn't taken out of context. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Originally posted by ZenOps
If you want to look at it from a pure scientific view.

http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/statistical_significance.htm

Global warming from carbon pollution is statistically insignificant (19 times out of 20) However - global cooling from volcanic eruptions is significant. Mount Pinatubo caused a 0.5 degree drop in itself.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-volcanoes-affect-w

my apologies to ZenOps for not reading. my bad.


some will argue that volcanoes increase temps by increasing CO2 levels, which is ridiculous. if this were true, one would expect to see peaks in CO2 (or temp) records every time a volcano erupts. such peaks are certainly not in any records. one example among thousands:

http://www.grist.org/phpThumb/phpThumb.php?src=http://www.grist.org/i/assets/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png&w=307

[heavyD]

How long can the global warming scare last when there isn't significant global warming? I give it 5-10 more years and it will be replaced by another worldwide political agenda.

[nonlinear]

there is significant warming, you idiot. stop spreading this uninformed misinformation.

[911fever]

Interesting article here from Lawrence Soloman:
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/02/18/lawrence-solomon-vindication-dutch-global-warming-denier-quot-was-right-after-all-quot.aspx

[rage2]

Originally posted by nonlinear
there is significant warming, you idiot. stop spreading this uninformed misinformation.
If you bothered to read the article...

- There is no significant warming in the last 15 years.
- There is significant warming in the last 35 years.
- However, there is also significant warming between 1860-1880. More so than 1975-2009.

This comes from the mouth of your leader, Phil Jones.

Sure there's warming, there's always been warming, but man-made due to CO2? CO2 wasn't an issue in 1860's thats for sure.

The more I look at the IPCC, the bigger of a joke it is. The global warming machine has been discrediting skeptics scientists as not climate scientists, all while their chairman, Rajendra Pachauri sits at the top of the IPCC. Dr Pachauri is a railroad engineer. He does have a PhD for that Dr in front of his name tho... a PhD in economics. :rofl:

I'm just glad people are finally waking up.

Hypocrites.

[Cos]

Originally posted by rage2

If you bothered to read the article...

- There is no significant warming in the last 15 years.
- There is significant warming in the last 35 years.
- However, there is also significant warming between 1860-1880. More so than 1975-2009.

This comes from the mouth of your leader, Phil Jones.

Sure there's warming, there's always been warming, but man-made due to CO2? CO2 wasn't an issue in 1860's thats for sure.

The more I look at the IPCC, the bigger of a joke it is. The global warming machine has been discrediting skeptics scientists as not climate scientists, all while their chairman, Rajendra Pachauri sits at the top of the IPCC. Dr Pachauri is a railroad engineer. He does have a PhD for that Dr in front of his name tho... a PhD in economics. :rofl:

I'm just glad people are finally waking up.

Hypocrites.

Great post.


The ozone was a real issue and it didnt have the hipe that global warming does. Global warming has so much controversy, maybe that is why it is still hanging on like a toddler to a tit.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by nonlinear
there is significant warming, you idiot. stop spreading this uninformed misinformation.

No there's not and please grow up for cryong out loud.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Cos


The ozone was a real issue and it didnt have the hipe that global warming does.

Ozone degradation was HUGE back when I was in elementary school. Is it still the issue it once was? That shit seems pretty important to me!

[Cos]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Ozone degradation was HUGE back when I was in elementary school. Is it still the issue it once was? That shit seems pretty important to me!

right it was huge after the fact from what I remember. I just remember learning that CFC cans and styrofoam was bad for the environment.

I dont think that it was that big of a deal until they had that plane up there that took photos of the obvious hole.

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/history.html

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


Ozone degradation was HUGE back when I was in elementary school. Is it still the issue it once was? That shit seems pretty important to me!

CFCs have been eliminated almost entirely from consumer products. There have been international bans on using them for quite some time now. If I recall Canada was instrumental in achieving this. HCFC's which are now used might still cause ozone depletion, but there is not a major consensus on this yet.

There was a study published a few years ago that indicated the ozone has stabilized. Although ozone levels fluctuate so much that it was very difficult to say with any certainty.

[rage2]

The Ozone hole appears yearly. The colder it is, the bigger the hole, with 2007 (I think) being the biggest hole ever recorded. The level of CFC's have dropped from the ban on CFC's, but unfortunately had zero impact on Ozone depletion.

Nobody cares about it anymore because banning CFC's and coming up with an alternative was cheap, even though it didn't do anything.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Cos]

Originally posted by rage2
\
Nobody cares about it anymore because banning CFC's and coming up with an alternative was cheap, even though it didn't do anything.

haha that actually makes more sense. I was 12 so my memory on it is a little vague.

[DonJuan]

Thanks Rage for shutting up Nonlinear, but the tinfoil hat mob won't shut up for a while. It took them till the late 80s to realize that the impending "global cooling" recorded during the 1970's was not happening. Excellent point with the CFC's as well.

Perhaps they will fold their tinfoil differently after this and make boats... or pirate hats or BOTH! YARRR!

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by rage2
The Ozone hole appears yearly. The colder it is, the bigger the hole, with 2007 (I think) being the biggest hole ever recorded. The level of CFC's have dropped from the ban on CFC's, but unfortunately had zero impact on Ozone depletion.

Nobody cares about it anymore because banning CFC's and coming up with an alternative was cheap, even though it didn't do anything.

Where are you getting your facts?

All scientific data and published articles I've seen on the matter show that there has been an observed slowing of depletion of the ozone, which models indicate will restore ozone levels to historic norms over the next 40-75 years.

This is from the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion reports released in 2006, which is the main source of information used by all UN nations to base their policies off of.

[Cos]

I dont trust the UN purely scientific committees anymore. Closest I will trust is the WHO.

Christ I would trust Rage over the UN on this shit. He has less of a vested interest in the outcome. :rofl:

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by Cos
I dont trust the UN purely scientific committees anymore. Closest I will trust is the WHO.

Christ I would trust Rage over the UN on this shit. He has less of a vested interest in the outcome. :rofl:

Well, that's not the only study. I just haven't seen an accredited study that contradicts it.

[rage2]

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider
Where are you getting your facts?

All scientific data and published articles I've seen on the matter show that there has been an observed slowing of depletion of the ozone, which models indicate will restore ozone levels to historic norms over the next 40-75 years.

This is from the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion reports released in 2006, which is the main source of information used by all UN nations to base their policies off of.
I saw a show about it on Discovery a few months ago. Some quick research...

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ozone_record.html

I was wrong, it was 2006, not 2007 where we had the largest ozone hole ever recorded. We came close to it again in 2008.

I'm reading your report here:

ftp://ftp.nilu.no/pub/NILU/geir/assessment-2006/10%20Q&AsChapter.pdf


Q20: When is the ozone layer expected to recover?

Substantial recovery of the ozone layer is expected near the middle of the 21st century, assuming global compliance with the Montreal Protocol. Recovery will occur as chlorine- and bromine-containing gases that cause ozone depletion decrease in the coming decades under the provisions of the Protocol. However, the influence of changes in climate and other atmospheric parameters could accelerate or delay ozone recovery, and volcanic eruptions in the next decades could temporarily reduce ozone amounts for several years.
Talk about a vague answer lol. If you read further into the report, you'll see a graph (Figure Q20-1) where the recorded levels does NOT show any increase at all, other than some insignificant trends. Their prediction is based on an expected reduction of CFCs, and computer models that predict ozone recovery. We know how much we can trust computer climate models... :D

Here's a mean hole area for each year, and a mean minimum ozone level since '79.

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/annual_data.txt

Plug that into excel and graph it. You'll see that both trends levelled out before the phase out dates of Halons and CFCs. Past the phase out dates, it continued to be level. Of course, news reports don't care for these details, and claim that it was the phasing out of halons and CFC's that caused ozone depletion to level out.

[kertejud2]

_PWDFzWt-Ag

[nonlinear]

kertejud2, excellent work posting the video, but don't expect anyone here to watch it, or to understand it. these folks are already very opinionated and don't have to try and understand science, read peer-reviewed papers, or think for themselves... it's far easier to just believe what they are told by their favorite right wing media outlet. there is really no point in trying to have a conversation about science with Beyond's Science Experts. after all, they are the experts.

[nonlinear]

Originally posted by rage2

We know how much we can trust computer climate models... :D

with all due respect rage, this is probably one of the most ignorant statements i've ever heard. you don't know the first thing about "computer climate models" - that much is obvious. I just don't see how you can take such a strong stance on something that you really know nothing about.

:bullshit:

[alloroc]

Originally posted by nonlinear

with all due respect rage, this is probably one of the most ignorant statements i've ever heard. you don't know the first thing about "computer climate models" - that much is obvious. I just don't see how you can take such a strong stance on something that you really know nothing about.

:bullshit:

I'm will bet you that Rage knows more about computers and computer programming than not only you, but a good portion of the actual scientists pugging the data into the programs.

[rage2]

Originally posted by nonlinear
with all due respect rage, this is probably one of the most ignorant statements i've ever heard. you don't know the first thing about "computer climate models" - that much is obvious. I just don't see how you can take such a strong stance on something that you really know nothing about.

:bullshit:
Actually, I do. A lot of source code has been released, I've gone through a lot of it, and to my surprise climate modelling is really statistical analysis with a lot of guesswork patched into the code. You'd figure they'd be a lot more scientific about it.

I always thought all the top research cimate models were large scale CFD modelling done on huge supercomputers, which would be able to do predictions (however accurate or inaccurate) without any guesswork.

Sad to say, it takes a lot more CPU to generate those cool climate amimations than to derive the data that's fed to generate those animations.

I may not be a climate scientist, but I am a professional nerd that understands source code and WTF it's doing. Then again, the chairman of the IPCC isn't a climate scientist either, so you could say I'm just as credible... :rofl:

[pyroza]

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/4/45270/1253930-this_thread_again_super.jpg

[nonlinear]

Originally posted by rage2

Actually, I do. A lot of source code has been released, I've gone through a lot of it, and to my surprise climate modelling is really statistical analysis with a lot of guesswork patched into the code. You'd figure they'd be a lot more scientific about it.

I always thought all the top research cimate models were large scale CFD modelling done on huge supercomputers, which would be able to do predictions (however accurate or inaccurate) without any guesswork.

Sad to say, it takes a lot more CPU to generate those cool climate amimations than to derive the data that's fed to generate those animations.

I may not be a climate scientist, but I am a professional nerd that understands source code and WTF it's doing. Then again, the chairman of the IPCC isn't a climate scientist either, so you could say I'm just as credible... :rofl:

the code to which you refer was taken entirely out of context, and it is still unclear what (if anything) the code was used for. without a full understanding of exactly what each analysis entailed, why the transformations were being done, and how said results were being used in the final publication, accusations of wrongful manipulation are nothing more than speculation.

also, the code that was leaked was for descriptive stats, but "climate modeling" is NOT "statistical analysis with a lot of guesswork patched into the code." there is an entire genre of process models called General Circulation Models, which are very sophisticated and based on various approximations of navier-stokes. (these are the models you refer to but seem to not realize exist). such models thus represent "the real world," and as you mention are very computationally intensive and need to be run on large clusters like some of those in westgrid, for example. you just have such a strong opinion of the topic, but seem to not quite understand the field, so I have to call BS here. IMO you guys don't know how much you can trust said models.

[UndrgroundRider]

Lets not derail this thread.

I think the one point that leads to the greatest misinterpretation of the results is that people don't understand the lag time between cause and effect. A lot of the ozone depleting molecules and compounds stay trapped in the atmosphere for decades. The true effects of the CFC ban won't be seen for years to come, because CFCs from years past are still destroying ozone.

A slight decrease in the immediate rate of ozone depletion indicates a long term trend towards recovery, even though actual ozone levels may still be decreasing.

[rage2]

Originally posted by nonlinear
the code to which you refer was taken entirely out of context, and it is still unclear what (if anything) the code was used for. without a full understanding of exactly what each analysis entailed, why the transformations were being done, and how said results were being used in the final publication, accusations of wrongful manipulation are nothing more than speculation.
I have much more code than the snippet I posted. There's also papers on how HADcm3 works, so I do understand how it works.


Originally posted by nonlinear
also, the code that was leaked was for descriptive stats, but "climate modeling" is NOT "statistical analysis with a lot of guesswork patched into the code." there is an entire genre of process models called General Circulation Models, which are very sophisticated and based on various approximations of navier-stokes. (these are the models you refer to but seem to not realize exist). such models thus represent "the real world," and as you mention are very computationally intensive and need to be run on large clusters like some of those in westgrid, for example. you just have such a strong opinion of the topic, but seem to not quite understand the field, so I have to call BS here. IMO you guys don't know how much you can trust said models.
Well now we're getting into fluid dynamics, my forte. The fact is that today, it is IMPOSSIBLE to mathematically predict something as simple as the turbulence around a Formula 1 car's wing, let alone interactions between different layers of the atmosphere. Navier–Stokes is one of the seven Millenium problems, and once solved, would actually make climate modelling half decent accurate. This is why today, we still build billion dollar wind tunnels to design F1 cars and airplanes, and not done in CFD simulations.

This is how climate modelling works today.

- Take a base formula of what we think is happening
- Add in guesswork/patchwork "factors" that affect it.
- Throw in data from 100 years ago
- Run the model for 100 year prediction
- Compare the results with current measured results
- Repeat step 2 until it's "accurate".

Once it's accurate, the model is considered good enough for future predictions. Unfortunately, something as simple as higher level of solar flare activity than expected will completely throw the results out the window.

I dunno why I still bother arguing with nonlinear. He thinks I'm ignorant, but yet every single thread just goes nowhere because he's a "scientist" and he knows everything, and every thread just becomes derailed.

Oh well, we'll see who has the last laugh in 10 or 20 years lol.

[rage2]

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider
All scientific data and published articles I've seen on the matter show that there has been an observed slowing of depletion of the ozone, which models indicate will restore ozone levels to historic norms over the next 40-75 years.

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider
Lets not derail this thread.

I think the one point that leads to the greatest misinterpretation of the results is that people don't understand the lag time between cause and effect. A lot of the ozone depleting molecules and compounds stay trapped in the atmosphere for decades. The true effects of the CFC ban won't be seen for years to come, because CFCs from years past are still destroying ozone.

A slight decrease in the immediate rate of ozone depletion indicates a long term trend towards recovery, even though actual ozone levels may still be decreasing.
I was just disagreeing with your observed slowing of ozone depletion and computer models predicting ozone level restoration in the next 40-75 years. I do understand there is lag time between the CFC ban and actual reduction of CFCs in the atmosphere. I was just trying to point out that ozone depletion actually leveled out (hit rock bottom?) before the ban while CFC's in the atmosphere was increasing, so it's really hard, if not impossible, to tell what's really causing it.

Fact is, CFC replacement is cheap. It was a simple thing to do in case it COULD eventually help ozone levels recover. I have no problems with that.

[msommers]

Originally posted by kertejud2
_PWDFzWt-Ag

It's interesting that you post that, as one of the most dreaded classes we have to take at UofC (SCIE311) is a scientific writing class. One of the papers required to write involves finding a news article and finding the original published paper(s) and comment on how the news article covered it. Needless to say, most are terrible. However, instead of explaining the science, most cover the 'jist' of it and tend to leave our important notes pertaining to the data, then again stuff like that is boring and doesn't need to be put in the newspaper article! Oddly enough, SOCI201 covers a fairly basic research process but touches and emphasizes on investigating claims made in the news, commercials etc.

[Wrinkly]

Originally posted by rage2



I'm just glad people are finally waking up.

Hypocrites.

rage - Are you saying I can put my name down for an RS5 with a clear conscience now?? :D


On a more serious note - have any of you watched "An Inconvenient Truth"? Pretty compelling stuff.

[Cos]

Originally posted by rage2

Well now we're getting into fluid dynamics, my forte. The fact is that today, it is IMPOSSIBLE to mathematically predict something as simple as the turbulence around a Formula 1 car's wing, let alone interactions between different layers of the atmosphere. Navier–Stokes is one of the seven Millenium problems, and once solved, would actually make climate modelling half decent accurate. This is why today, we still build billion dollar wind tunnels to design F1 cars and airplanes, and not done in CFD simulations.

This is how climate modelling works today.

- Take a base formula of what we think is happening
- Add in guesswork/patchwork "factors" that affect it.
- Throw in data from 100 years ago
- Run the model for 100 year prediction
- Compare the results with current measured results
- Repeat step 2 until it's "accurate".

Once it's accurate, the model is considered good enough for future predictions. Unfortunately, something as simple as higher level of solar flare activity than expected will completely throw the results out the window.

I dunno why I still bother arguing with nonlinear. He thinks I'm ignorant, but yet every single thread just goes nowhere because he's a "scientist" and he knows everything, and every thread just becomes derailed.

Oh well, we'll see who has the last laugh in 10 or 20 years lol.

:slow clap:

:rofl:

[nonlinear]

Originally posted by rage2

The fact is that today, it is IMPOSSIBLE to mathematically predict something as simple as the turbulence around a Formula 1 car's wing, let alone interactions between different layers of the atmosphere.

i could not disagree with you more, sir. it is entirely POSSIBLE to make such predictions. also, the fine scale turbulence of which you speak responds to processes operating at much finer spatial and temporal scales than those used in GCMs, and the modeling approaches are likewise very different.


Originally posted by rage2
Navier–Stokes is one of the seven Millenium problems, and once solved, would actually make climate modelling half decent accurate.

a solution would of course be very powerful, however the various approximations already work quite well.


Originally posted by rage2
This is why today, we still build billion dollar wind tunnels to design F1 cars and airplanes, and not done in CFD simulations.

wind tunnels are used to collect data for model assessment as well as for correlating scaling relationships (which are simple and work well - which is exactly what engineers want). however, just because a scaling relationship has a consistently high R^2 (regardless of how/where the data was collected) and is thus used for pragmatic purposes, doesn't mean we lack an understanding of the underlying causal processes, or lack the technical ability to simulate such processes.


Originally posted by rage2
This is how climate modelling works today.

- Take a base formula of what we think is happening
- Add in guesswork/patchwork "factors" that affect it.
- Throw in data from 100 years ago
- Run the model for 100 year prediction
- Compare the results with current measured results
- Repeat step 2 until it's "accurate".

Once it's accurate, the model is considered good enough for future predictions. Unfortunately, something as simple as higher level of solar flare activity than expected will completely throw the results out the window.


this is simply not true, and changes in short-wave solar radiation can be incorporated into such models.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by msommers


It's interesting that you post that, as one of the most dreaded classes we have to take at UofC (SCIE311) is a scientific writing class. One of the papers required to write involves finding a news article and finding the original published paper(s) and comment on how the news article covered it. Needless to say, most are terrible. However, instead of explaining the science, most cover the 'jist' of it and tend to leave our important notes pertaining to the data, then again stuff like that is boring and doesn't need to be put in the newspaper article! Oddly enough, SOCI201 covers a fairly basic research process but touches and emphasizes on investigating claims made in the news, commercials etc.

Its all about the headline

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/files/2009/05/phd051809s.gif