Statistically flawed
Because it relies on looking at temperature behaviour over only short periods of time, the argument that "global warming has stopped" has been labelled statistically flawed.
In 2008, the Associated Press (AP) gave four statistical experts global temperature data which had been 'anonymised' so the analysts wouldn't know what the data represented.
According to AP:
Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.
One of the experts, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina, concluded:
"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a microtrend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect."
This argument has even been rejected by Dr Pat Michaels, one of the most prominent US climate skeptics. In this video, he urges the audience at a skeptic conference not to use the argument that global warming has stopped, because it is so easy to disprove it undermines their credibility.
Yes, it amazes me why there are no straight forward answers to such a simple question and the warmists wonder why so many people are not accepting their wierd theories.
For pity's sake: There is no ONE paper. There are THOUSANDS which cumulatively lead to the robust conclusion that human generated movement of CO2 from its prehistoric underground sequestration (as coal and oil) to the atmosphere have caused and will continue to cause the planet to warm. The Skeptical Science site provides explanations and links to hundreds of those papers. Do some reading for yourself and you might actually learn something.Now that Basilio has asserted all "Traditional Scientists" (whomever they are) agree man is indeed heating the earth, then it should be a simple matter of finding the elusive paper all these "traditional" folks are using that clearly provides the observed evidence of man's 3% CO2 contribution driving that crazy 5 degrees the alarmists here keep banging on about.
.Perhaps Basilio's Traditional Scientists are those same traditional ones from the 1970s claiming humans were cooling the earth so significantly that they banged on about a new ice age and of course the standard "transfer of wealth" to "cure" this cooling problem.
For pity's sake: There is no ONE paper.
There are THOUSANDS which cumulatively lead to the robust conclusion that human generated movement of CO2 from its prehistoric underground sequestration (as coal and oil) to the atmosphere have caused and will continue to cause the planet to warm.
I'm grateful to Matt Ridley for allowing me to post the text of his Angus Millar lecture at the RSA in Edinburgh.
Ghotib that is not the argument.
But it adds: "Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared with natural climate variability over this timeframe
FOR extremes in climate change we often need not look at thermometers and rain gauges, but rather to the various elements of the global warming debate. Activists and politicians too often oscillate between those who deny any human impact on climate and those who deliberately engender alarm
Nothing from our alarmist posters about the recent IPCC report?
........
And more on the IPCC and how it lines up with past predictions here: What say Gore, Flannery and Brown now?
The moral of the story is not very encouraging - because Rahmstorf has had considerable success. The move that led to the article being withdrawn by the FR made it onto the front page of the New York Times, as Rahmstorf, obviously rather gratified, tells his readers in his blog of 25 May. His initiative is mentioned in the New York Times as one of several successful attempts by climate researchers to publicly correct grossly distorted or false reports. In some cases this may be justified. In this particular case, it is nothing less than a demonstration of how to try and suppress unwelcome interpretations using an authoritarian concept of truth and with the help of a media conspiracy theory based solely on isolated cases and thus basically void of empirical substance
Nils-Axel Mörner was head of paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University (1991-2005), president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003), leader of the Maldives sea level project (2000-11), chairman of the INTAS project on geomagnetism and climate (1997-2003).
Interesting article by Nils-Axel Mörner on the sea levels scam - there is a copyright notice on the page, so have a read. He has studied many of the low-lying regions in his 45-year career recording and interpreting sea level data, conducted six field trips to the Maldives, trips to Bangladesh and Tuvalu and he believes there is no need to fear rising sea levels. His impressive qualifications as follows:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml
Nils-Axel Mörner said:The world’s true experts on sea level are to be found at the INQUA (International Union for Quaternary Reseach) commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (of which I am a former president), not at the IPCC.
INQUA said:The Quaternary Period in Earth History:
The Quaternary Period spans the last 2.6 million years of the Earth's history.
The Quaternary is an interval with dramatic and frequent changes in global climate. Warm interglacials alternated with cold ice ages. The Earth is right now entering a time of unusually warm climate. Significant and potentially rapid environmental changes could pose major challenges for human habitability.
The expertise of Quaternary scientists is to interpret the changing world of the glacial ages and their impact on our planet's surface environments. Quaternary palaeoclimatic investigations play a key role in the understanding of the possible future climate change on our planet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?