Paging Ptor Spricenieks…Ptor Spricenieks to the courtesy phone please.
If you’ve followed this blog and the comments at all over the years, you know that on most weather related posts, Ptor Spricenieks usually chimes in about solar flares and other weather anomalies that I can’t even pronounce, never mind understand. So, I’m wondering what he (and YOU) has to say about this latest report from the UK that states the earth’s average temperature showing no signs of increase over the past 15 years. It also claims that the sun is now headed into what is called a “grand minimum“, which creates cold winters and short summers…or even a mini-ice age? What the…?
Just proves everything we thought we knew, we didn’t.
Al Gore’s timing was perfect.
This doesn’t say much about how the processes controling how the earth traps heat has changed though. Also, some what skeptical of the sources too.
That said, let the new mini-ice age roll! I’m down.
“According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830.”
92% chance eh? If we are talking statistical significance here, most (all) scientists report anything with less than a 95% chance as “not significant.” I’d be surprised if the paper itself reported a similar statement. A statement like that above sounds like junk science to me. Wish news articles like this would post up a link to the research paper itself sometimes. Will have to do some further digging for the research itself!
It is junk (but not science) — 15 years of climate data is too short. This is an extremely short-sighted, selective view of climate. Furthermore, it includes 12 of the hottest years on record since 1890! For a more complete record see
http://www.physorg.com/news3027.html
For more casual evidence of our warming climate just look at the glaciers in GTNP and the dead trees in the forests all around us.
The Met Office responded, “This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.”
The full response is here:
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/
And a sobering video from NASA of 131 years of global temperature change in 26 seconds is here:
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/01/watch-131-years-of-global-temperatures-in-26-seconds#.Tyfp9qhvpXA.facebook
Sorry, I’m not taking the climate change bait 😉 A subject as complex as this can be little more than a Rorschach test for political affiliation.
Anyway, the science is what it is. I am more concerned about what happens to our rights when science gets so highly politicized.
An interesting if somewhat technical article on how earth’s energy budget has remained out of balance (on the hot side) despite the recent exceptionally low solar minimum: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130172611.htm. A brief excerpt: “The fact that we still see a positive imbalance despite the prolonged solar minimum isn’t a surprise given what we’ve learned about the climate system, but it’s worth noting because this provides unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global warming,” Hansen said.
Closer to home, there was that widely covered paper that said Yellowstone’s summer temperatures could rise by as much as 10 degrees by something like 2050, and another story indicating that “climate change could increase the frequency of large wildfires in Yellowstone to an unprecedented level”: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110725152847.htm.
As for on-the-ground evidence, don’t forget the bears who were disinclined to hibernate on a typical schedule, fouling up the best-laid plans of some bc skiers…
This is bunk – old bunk as a matter of fact.
This is a re-hash of information contained in a book called “Global Warming: What does the Science Tell Us?” published in 1989 by the Marshall Institute, a shill for SDI (Star Wars – remember that?)during the Regan Administration run by Bill Nierenberg and old cronies Fredrick Seitz and Robert Jastrow – who previously had worked for the tobacco industry to deny that smoking causes cancer, etc.
Look these guys up – they are some of the most influential people of the last 40 years, and, unfortunately – they’ve been able, with the financial backing of their sponsors, to derail action against tobacco, star wars, acid rain, air and water regulation, global warming. I couldn’t make this stuff up. (Read: “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway for the full low-down.)
Back then, these guys took a chart from a report by James Hansen, lopped the bottom half of it off, and showed the part they liked. The original version showed three sets of data: one with the sun’s solar output, which was increasing at the time, a second showed the effects of volcanic CO2 in the air, which was showing a negligible effect on world temp, and a third, showing the effects of human-generated CO2, which showed a significant effect, much more than the other two.
Nierenberg and the others just showed the solar output – claimed that the increasing solar radiation was the cause of global warming, and that we could do nothing about it – so why do anything. They presented this information to the Regan White House and the staff and were able to kill off the then mounting drive to regulate CO2 output.
Hansen and the rest of the scientific community were never invited or asked what they thought. They tried to set the record straight, but were stonewalled by their political and industrial adversaries. Hansen is a favorite whipping boy for FOX news-types and a regular target of slander and disinformation. Google him, you’ll see.
Anyway – this is more of the same: The MET Office report does state that the solar output of the sun is expected to decrease – a development expected for at least the last 20 years or so – nothing new here, but it ALSO says that this will NOT result in overall lower temps, as the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere far outweighs those effects.
Is there a conspiracy? You bet.
Watts up with that .com is considered the best science blog for information
The graph is interesting, but let’s not let 0.2 degree C range in temp get us all hot and bothered…. I’d argue that even a change of 1 degree is within the uncertainty in the measurement itself – so tenths of a degree become meaningless. It’s just a shame – the scientists we’re suppose to believe have let political pressure bias their results (and this goes both ways).
All I know, is that Al Gore really f#$%ed any reasonable effort to control CO2 emissions – I still can’t believe he won a prize for that alarmist/propaganda BS film (go back and see how many of his graphs have labels, or more importantly scale – definitely weak journalism). Water vapor still has and will continue to have a much larger effect on global warmth than CO2 (CO2 doesn’t form clouds like water). And guess which one is in higher concentration in our atmosphere?
Bottom line – Do humans impact the environment? Absolutely. But how much is still a huge question. Should we be mindful of what we discharge into our air? Absolutely. But just like the occupy movement, the fears/concerns are real, but are severely misdirected. Personally, I’d rather see more attention going to the health of our oceans and fresh water ways than the quality of our air. I hate to imagine what would happen to the earth should our ocean die (you know, the place that is responsible for generating 50% of the earth’s oxygen).
and Fish Creek too?
Ok, back from skiing and diapers(increasing the global population). So now you asked for it….
First of all that East Anglia University in the UK which releases the data mentioned was originally at the heart of climategate scandal. Bad data is bad and scientists are obviously prone to corruption. The mainstream media can no longer be trusted.
Glaciers have been receeding with small growth oscillations over the last 10,000 years so that is no proof of any climate change mechanism in my view. It’s already been shown that the Himalayan glacier shrinkage acceleration is due to soot (blackening) more than anything else which only goes to show that pollution and our operating system is the problem, not CO2 itself. And the biggest problem/source of pollution is the military-industrial complex the world over along with it’s repression of technology. Oil, solar and wind has been obsolete since the time of Nikolai Tesla and Victor Schauberger.
The whole climate system is super complex and includes the sun and other factors so there’s no real point getting too distracted with climate change itself. After all what is really wrong with the climate anyways? We go though cycles like always and if another ice age is coming, there’s nothing we can do except keep trying to get rid of the powers that be to liberate concealed technology, end the fractal reserve Rothschild banking system and dismantle and recycle the armies of the world in order to survive regardless. Imagine what could have been done with the upwards of 20 trillion dollars pilfered by the Fed and it’s “Templar” masters!!! Our whole operating system could have been revamped for the benefit of humanity. It’s so frigging obvious we are dealing with non-human entities running the show at the moment. all other “environmental” efforts are futile, frivolous green ego bandaid showboating untill the root of the problem has been confronted and eliminated.
What also really concerns me is things like HAARP and spraying barium and aluminum everywhere from airplane fuel exhaust.
regardless, I think the next ice age is about due. 😉
some commentary about the source of this post…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100133247/children-just-arent-going-to-know-what-sun-is/
Climate science is a lot like health care science. Every ten years what we thought we knew comes under speculation, and sometimes does a 180. I don’t hold much value in any of it. Science, no matter the origin, is riddled with conflicts of interest.
Someone needs to go hop in a deep crevasse, freeze themselves, then thaw out in 2,000 years (or ten years) to witness what all comes of this debate.
thanks for the comment ptor…and everyone else.
it’d be nice to think we know what is going on with the climate, but i’m not sure how much i believe both sides of the global climate change debate. i guess only time will tell.
Makes sense that skiers get excited about the possibility of a mini-ice age! I for one truly wish it were so.
However, an article in a British tabloid that violently wrenches a predetermined conclusion from a scientific report (read the link Christine posted above with the MET office’s response to this article: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/) is NOT convincing.
If the scientific community were convinced that this was “ground-breaking” news, you would be reading about it in major newspapers and hearing about it on reputable broadcast stations. (FOX doesn’t count) Those who think that climate scientists are colluding to deceive the rest of humanity about the dangers we face from destabilizing the climate don’t know much about how science works.
Unfortunately, we don’t get a free pass for spewing fossil carbon into the air for the last 150 years. Actions have consequences, and failing to quickly switch to clean, renewable energy will dog humanity for a very long time. Losing ski seasons will be the least of our worries if we don’t get cracking.
Oh lord, here we go again. Randosteve: I have great respect for your site when you stick to something you are knowledgeable about. Speculating about not knowing who to believe is just a copout for not educating yourself.
One of the skills needed in life is distinguishing signal from noise. You know how to do this when it comes to your first love, skiing. Some of us (I’ve done climate research for over 20 years) know how to do this when it comes to our are of expertise. Bloggers and tabloid newspapers, not so much…
For an informed and quantitative take on the b**l**t put out by the Daily Mail and others, read this:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/trend-and-noise/
If that one is too technical, then read this:
http://doc-snow.hubpages.com/hub/When-Did-Global-Warming-Stop
Hey Eric; I think Steve is just putting out fodder for discussion and climate is a relevant subject for skiers to discuss and further educate ourselves. I don’t think he’s being opinionated in any way and the tabloid’s effect is only either wishful thinking or rousting more sincere investigation. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter if it’s a tabloid or the WSJ, it seems to be quoting information given out by a University.It’s just interesting that one of the original advocates of AGW have now taken a reverse stance whether they’re right or not. Who runs the Met Office anyways? Can they be trusted?
Dave…”ground breaking news” is irrelevant to “major newspapers” and the press at large …obviously, when you have precedents of “major revelations” like DCA in cancer treatment and Gaddhafi trying to sell oil for gold and introduce an african gold coin before he gets executed Kennedy style never getting a whisper.
I still would emphasize the need to consider the significance of HAARP and Russian and Chinese electromagnetic devices when including weather anomalies in the overall picture. I don’t see any climate “gurus” including this in their discussions. Naivete is no excuse.
Pretty cold here in France right now…evidence of …. climate 😉
Ptor and I don’t agree on some of the details, but his point about the media, and what gets reported is correct.
It is NOT the case that what you read and hear about is what is important, or generally considered to be the best current knowladge we have. Hard-core, peer-reviewed science is generally given short shrift in the mainstream media, if it is mentioned at all. What gets airtime is politcally motivated pseudo-science, often in soundbite form, quoted by ex-scientists on corporate payrolls.
The people getting the airtime are a pretty small bunch. Its (depressingly) impressive how effective this small group of people, with LOTS of cash has been in advanceing their agenda.
agenda???…
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1719/814/The_Case_For_Alien_Control_Of_Earth.html