+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 152
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts

    Default No global warming for over 17 years

    Ben Santer published a paper in 2011 that said the following:

    Because of the pronounced effect of interannual noise on decadal trends, a multi-model ensemble of anthropogenically-forced simulations displays many 10 year periods with little warming. A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a
    slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature

    records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on

    global‐mean tropospheric temperature.
    In the same paper:

    On timescales longer than 17 years, the average trends in RSS and UAH near global TLT data consistently exceed 95% of the unforced trends in the CMIP3 control runs (Figure 6d), clearly indicating that the observed multi‐ decadal warming of the lower troposphere is too large to be explained by model estimates of natural internal variability.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...11JD016263/pdf

    So for Santer, 17 years is the magic number.

    According to RSS, there has now been no warming for over 17 years and 3 months.


    Good news! The theory of catastrophic man-made global warming appears to wrong.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pretty Beach
    Posts
    4,723
    Thanks
    572
    Thanked
    202
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    Good news! The theory of catastrophic man-made global warming appears to wrong.
    That is not true. Your conclusion is certainly not backed up by this research.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by spoon View Post
    That is not true. Your conclusion is certainly not backed up by this research.
    I don't see how you can believe that the observations match the predictions that the models have produced.



    When the observations do not match the theory, which do you discard? The theory, or the observations?

  4. #4
    Busy-Bee's Avatar
    Busy-Bee is offline Offending people since before Del :D
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    11,183
    Thanks
    3,664
    Thanked
    4,704
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Past Moderator - Thank you
    The Earth is 4.5+ billion years old, homo sapiens are estimated to have first appeared 200,000 years ago and you think we should look at the last 17 years to get an idea of what's happening?

    Face facts F, you're wrong and 97% of scientists would agree that you're wrong. To deny that humans have adversely affected the climate is to deny overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. That's fine, that's your choice but how do you pick the science you do believe and the science you don't believe? Maybe life without the benefit of science for a while and have a think about that. Turn off your computer, your lights, don't use your car or any electrical appliances, no medicines, no books, no phones, no houses, no shop bought food etc.

    If 97% of doctors told you you had cancer would you seek treatment or would you argue that you don't because you feel ok?

    Am I the only one that finds it very ironic when science deniers argue their point from behind a computer?

  5. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Busy-Bee For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (20-12-2013),beebs  (20-12-2013),HollyGolightly81  (20-12-2013),JustUsTwo  (20-12-2013),My Beloved Ones  (22-03-2014),nicole83  (24-12-2013),snowqu33n  (22-12-2013)

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    171
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked
    82
    Reviews
    0
    You would get along well with my Dad, he bangs on about this at any given opportunity, he is also COO of a large mining company.
    I would assume you have based your conclusion on much more than one paper and realise that 17 years is a miniscule amount of time.
    I also assume that your use of sensationalised statements serves to provoke an extreme reaction from responders, which I cannot be bothered to provide on a Friday afternoon.
    Suffice to say I disagree with your conclusion

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JustUsTwo For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (20-12-2013),HollyGolightly81  (20-12-2013)

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pretty Beach
    Posts
    4,723
    Thanks
    572
    Thanked
    202
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/sant...ggerating.html

    You are not on the right path. That is all I am going to say. I am not going to debate this any further with you.
    Last edited by spoon; 20-12-2013 at 15:11.

  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to spoon For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (20-12-2013),Busy-Bee  (20-12-2013),JungleMum  (20-12-2013),snowqu33n  (22-12-2013)

  10. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy-Bee View Post
    The Earth is 4.5+ billion years old, homo sapiens are estimated to have first appeared 200,000 years ago and you think we should look at the last 17 years to get an idea of what's happening?

    Face facts F, you're wrong and 97% of scientists would agree that you're wrong.
    I did not choose the 17 year figure. Ben Santer did. Are you saying that Santer is wrong?

    What source are you referring to quote your 97% figure from? It is amazing how often people, including the media, say '97% blah blah' without knowing where it actually came from. It will either be from a manipulated survey of 77 people, or from John Cook's dodgy maths (which turned 0.3% into 97%). Your call.

  11. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by spoon View Post
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/sant...ggerating.html

    You are not on the right path. That is all I am going to say. I am not going to debate this any further with you.
    I'm not sure what you are trying to say with that link. I'm assuming that you agree with Santer? But you don't agree with his view on the importance of the 17 year figure???

  12. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JustUsTwo View Post
    I would assume you have based your conclusion on much more than one paper and realise that 17 years is a miniscule amount of time.
    Most definitely. Yes. But the 17 year figure is not my own. It is Santer's.

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    171
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked
    82
    Reviews
    0
    I didn't think it was your own, but thanks for clearing that up :thumbup:
    I do not wish to engage you any further, your blinkers are firmly in place.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to JustUsTwo For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (21-12-2013)


 

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming Debate is Obsolete
    By kw123 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2013, 07:07
  2. Warming formula in microwave??????
    By curiouschildcare in forum Mixed Breast & Bottle Feeding Support
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-07-2013, 21:16
  3. House warming gift
    By noopy in forum Gifts for Mums and Dads
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 16-05-2013, 11:35

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Tambo Teddies
Visit our online store and select your individually handmade natural sheepskin teddy bear. Our soft and loveable bears come in a range of styles and colours. Created in Outback Queensland each bear is unique individual. 100% Australian made!
sales & new stuffsee all
The Health Hub
Give a new mum a fitness boost for Christmas & New Year. Studio-based, small group training sessions - cardio, strength, core, Pilates & boxing. Choice of 16 hrs per week, flexible-arrival feature - bubs & kids welcome! Gift vouchers available.
featured supporter
Tribalance
TriBalance is a physio, yoga & pilates studio in Brisbane's inner north, offering specialised women's health physiotherapy services. Weekly pregnancy yoga classes are scheduled at the studio on Thursdays 1- 2pm and Saturdays 1-2:15pm.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!