IPCCs report on global warming.
So after seeing no global warming for 18 years, a potential halt to ice disappearing in the North Pole, and every climate prediction made not coming true. The IPCC is now even more confident that global warming is man made.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKBRE98Q0A820130927?irpc=932
Opinions please
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKBRE98Q0A820130927?irpc=932
Opinions please
Scroll to see replies
Original post by MatureStudent36
So after seeing no global warming for 18 years, a potential halt to ice disappearing in the North Pole, and every climate prediction made not coming true.
I'd like to know where you got this all from.
Original post by SHallowvale
I'd like to know where you got this all from.
are you denying there hasn't been an increase in global temperatures since 98? Sea ice coverage isn't greater in 2013 than it was in 2014 and/or claiming that previous climate predictions have been correct?
Original post by The_Duck
Just because we got the sums wrong doesn't change the basic science behind global warming that still incriminates us. Even if it is mostly caused by natural factors, is it not better to avoid aggravating these factors?
Money could argue that it's not just the sums that were wrong. I generally work on the assumption that if I can't prove my hypothesis, then I don't keep banging on about the hypothesis being correct.
Original post by MatureStudent36
are you denying there hasn't been an increase in global temperatures since 98? Sea ice coverage isn't greater in 2013 than it was in 2014 and/or claiming that previous climate predictions have been correct?
I'm not trying to deny/accept anything. I'm asking where you've got your information from:
''So after seeing no global warming for 18 years, a potential halt to ice disappearing in the North Pole, and every climate prediction made not coming true.''
Original post by SHallowvale
I'm not trying to deny/accept anything. I'm asking where you've got your information from:
''So after seeing no global warming for 18 years, a potential halt to ice disappearing in the North Pole, and every climate prediction made not coming true.''
''So after seeing no global warming for 18 years, a potential halt to ice disappearing in the North Pole, and every climate prediction made not coming true.''
No global warming since 1998.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
North Pole ice increase. ( but I will acknowledge that one years increase doesn't mean a stop to the pattern. But it does look an interesting time over the next few years.) see arctic sea ice content graph.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
IPCC projections versus observations.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/
Original post by MatureStudent36
No global warming since 1998.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
North Pole ice increase. ( but I will acknowledge that one years increase doesn't mean a stop to the pattern. But it does look an interesting time over the next few years.) see arctic sea ice content graph.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
IPCC projections versus observations.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
North Pole ice increase. ( but I will acknowledge that one years increase doesn't mean a stop to the pattern. But it does look an interesting time over the next few years.) see arctic sea ice content graph.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
IPCC projections versus observations.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/
I swear you posted all these links on another thread, got debunked, and now you're posting them all again?
Original post by MatureStudent36
No global warming since 1998.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
North Pole ice increase. ( but I will acknowledge that one years increase doesn't mean a stop to the pattern. But it does look an interesting time over the next few years.) see arctic sea ice content graph.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
IPCC projections versus observations.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
North Pole ice increase. ( but I will acknowledge that one years increase doesn't mean a stop to the pattern. But it does look an interesting time over the next few years.) see arctic sea ice content graph.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
IPCC projections versus observations.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/comparing-ipcc-1990-predictions-with-2011-data/
Thank you for posting these links, i'll read them soon and reply.
Original post by Tabzqt
I swear you posted all these links on another thread, got debunked, and now you're posting them all again?
Is this true? Can you get a link to the thread?
Original post by SHallowvale
Is this true? Can you get a link to the thread?
Is this true? Can you get a link to the thread?
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2466577
Original post by MatureStudent36
So after seeing no global warming for 18 years
The hottest year on record was 2010. The previous decade was the warmest experienced.
Original post by MatureStudent36
a potential halt to ice disappearing in the North Pole
a potential halt to ice disappearing in the North Pole
Artic sea ice set a record low in 2012.
Original post by MatureStudent36
and every climate prediction made not coming true.
and every climate prediction made not coming true.
Yeah, I know right, just look at these:
Original post by Tabzqt
I swear you posted all these links on another thread, got debunked, and now you're posting them all again?
I posted on the other thread and somebody just said that I was wrong without showing any evidence to the contrary.
Original post by MatureStudent36
I posted on the other thread and somebody just said that I was wrong without showing any evidence to the contrary.
I don't think anyone else saw it that way
Climate change is a religion. You can't argue with it. The more you do so, the stronger the faith of the true believers gets.
Given that this is a student forum, is no-one in the slightest bit concerned at the awful quality and integrity of the academic research that feed the IPCC?
Does no-one care that the IPCC gets all its data and conclusion from only one source, an academic unit that would have been shunned and absolutely discredited for its conduct had it occurred in any other field than climate science?
An academic unit that refused to share its methods and data for years for peer review?
A panel that seemingly reaches its conclusions first, and then retrospectively re-writes its reports and data to fit those pre-conceptions?
That's not science. That's mad science.
How about today? Live on BBC Radio, a climate fundamentalist from the Antarctic Survey claimed that "there must be a huge amount of deep sea warming going on, because all our models predicted the amount of heat that would be trapped by greenhouse gases, and due to the lack of warming over the last decades, this heat must be going somewhere."
So - they have a model. It makes a prediction. Over the course of many years, the predicted data does not tally with the actual collected data. The conclusion of the climate scientists is therefore not that their model is wrong, but that there is hidden data that they cannot find.
So now, they have portents of yet another climate disaster looming - based on hidden warming that "must" be occurring because the earth is not as warm as they thought it would be.
Did it ever, ever, ever occur that their predictions were incorrect?
How about another climate scientist - again live on the BBC - was asked "How much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is contributed by human activity?
Answer "We are 95% certain than humans cause global warming"
Question: "But how much? What percentage of the CO2 is caused by humans?"
Answer: "We are 95% certain that humans cause global warming"
Question: "It's a very simple question - how much of that CO2 is caused by humans?"
Host:"I'm afraid we have to move on, we're getting wildly off topic here."
Given that this is a student forum, is no-one in the slightest bit concerned at the awful quality and integrity of the academic research that feed the IPCC?
Does no-one care that the IPCC gets all its data and conclusion from only one source, an academic unit that would have been shunned and absolutely discredited for its conduct had it occurred in any other field than climate science?
An academic unit that refused to share its methods and data for years for peer review?
A panel that seemingly reaches its conclusions first, and then retrospectively re-writes its reports and data to fit those pre-conceptions?
That's not science. That's mad science.
How about today? Live on BBC Radio, a climate fundamentalist from the Antarctic Survey claimed that "there must be a huge amount of deep sea warming going on, because all our models predicted the amount of heat that would be trapped by greenhouse gases, and due to the lack of warming over the last decades, this heat must be going somewhere."
So - they have a model. It makes a prediction. Over the course of many years, the predicted data does not tally with the actual collected data. The conclusion of the climate scientists is therefore not that their model is wrong, but that there is hidden data that they cannot find.
So now, they have portents of yet another climate disaster looming - based on hidden warming that "must" be occurring because the earth is not as warm as they thought it would be.
Did it ever, ever, ever occur that their predictions were incorrect?
How about another climate scientist - again live on the BBC - was asked "How much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is contributed by human activity?
Answer "We are 95% certain than humans cause global warming"
Question: "But how much? What percentage of the CO2 is caused by humans?"
Answer: "We are 95% certain that humans cause global warming"
Question: "It's a very simple question - how much of that CO2 is caused by humans?"
Host:"I'm afraid we have to move on, we're getting wildly off topic here."
Original post by Clip
Climate change is a religion. You can't argue with it. The more you do so, the stronger the faith of the true believers gets.
Given that this is a student forum, is no-one in the slightest bit concerned at the awful quality and integrity of the academic research that feed the IPCC?
Does no-one care that the IPCC gets all its data and conclusion from only one source, an academic unit that would have been shunned and absolutely discredited for its conduct had it occurred in any other field than climate science?
An academic unit that refused to share its methods and data for years for peer review?
A panel that seemingly reaches its conclusions first, and then retrospectively re-writes its reports and data to fit those pre-conceptions?
That's not science. That's mad science.
How about today? Live on BBC Radio, a climate fundamentalist from the Antarctic Survey claimed that "there must be a huge amount of deep sea warming going on, because all our models predicted the amount of heat that would be trapped by greenhouse gases, and due to the lack of warming over the last decades, this heat must be going somewhere."
So - they have a model. It makes a prediction. Over the course of many years, the predicted data does not tally with the actual collected data. The conclusion of the climate scientists is therefore not that their model is wrong, but that there is hidden data that they cannot find.
So now, they have portents of yet another climate disaster looming - based on hidden warming that "must" be occurring because the earth is not as warm as they thought it would be.
Did it ever, ever, ever occur that their predictions were incorrect?
How about another climate scientist - again live on the BBC - was asked "How much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is contributed by human activity?
Answer "We are 95% certain than humans cause global warming"
Question: "But how much? What percentage of the CO2 is caused by humans?"
Answer: "We are 95% certain that humans cause global warming"
Question: "It's a very simple question - how much of that CO2 is caused by humans?"
Host:"I'm afraid we have to move on, we're getting wildly off topic here."
Given that this is a student forum, is no-one in the slightest bit concerned at the awful quality and integrity of the academic research that feed the IPCC?
Does no-one care that the IPCC gets all its data and conclusion from only one source, an academic unit that would have been shunned and absolutely discredited for its conduct had it occurred in any other field than climate science?
An academic unit that refused to share its methods and data for years for peer review?
A panel that seemingly reaches its conclusions first, and then retrospectively re-writes its reports and data to fit those pre-conceptions?
That's not science. That's mad science.
How about today? Live on BBC Radio, a climate fundamentalist from the Antarctic Survey claimed that "there must be a huge amount of deep sea warming going on, because all our models predicted the amount of heat that would be trapped by greenhouse gases, and due to the lack of warming over the last decades, this heat must be going somewhere."
So - they have a model. It makes a prediction. Over the course of many years, the predicted data does not tally with the actual collected data. The conclusion of the climate scientists is therefore not that their model is wrong, but that there is hidden data that they cannot find.
So now, they have portents of yet another climate disaster looming - based on hidden warming that "must" be occurring because the earth is not as warm as they thought it would be.
Did it ever, ever, ever occur that their predictions were incorrect?
How about another climate scientist - again live on the BBC - was asked "How much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is contributed by human activity?
Answer "We are 95% certain than humans cause global warming"
Question: "But how much? What percentage of the CO2 is caused by humans?"
Answer: "We are 95% certain that humans cause global warming"
Question: "It's a very simple question - how much of that CO2 is caused by humans?"
Host:"I'm afraid we have to move on, we're getting wildly off topic here."
Well said
I quite like this one. The UK has warmed as a result of AGW, now the IPCC is predicting that the temperatures going to drop back to the original temperature, and hey presto, that's down to AGW.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10337064/IPCC-report-Britain-could-cool-if-Gulf-Stream-slows.html
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by pjm600
The hottest year on record was 2010. The previous decade was the warmest experienced.
Artic sea ice set a record low in 2012.
Yeah, I know right, just look at these:
Artic sea ice set a record low in 2012.
Yeah, I know right, just look at these:
Nobody is denying its got warmer. People are questioning why temperature increase has flat lined since 1998. You've also forgotten else niño effects and the fact that records only go back 110 years. And that nobody can yet accurately say what is normal.
Arctic sea ice set a record low last year.......but records only began in 1980. Again. What's normal.
Your graphs aren't IPCC reports. I don't even know what your graphs are trying to show. What are they? Who did them? And why aren't they the IPCC data?
Original post by MatureStudent36
Nobody is denying its got warmer. People are questioning why temperature increase has flat lined since 1998. You've also forgotten else niño effects and the fact that records only go back 110 years. And that nobody can yet accurately say what is normal.
No, you said there has been no warming since 1998, not that temp increase has flat lined. There quite clearly has been warming since 1998, so your initial point is incorrect.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Arctic sea ice set a record low last year.......but records only began in 1980. Again. What's normal.
Arctic sea ice set a record low last year.......but records only began in 1980. Again. What's normal.
You said "a potential halt to sea ice disappearing", sea ice has not stopped melting:
That's by the Polar Science Center, Washington uni, link
Original post by MatureStudent36
Your graphs aren't IPCC reports. I don't even know what your graphs are trying to show. What are they? Who did them? And why aren't they the IPCC data?
Your graphs aren't IPCC reports. I don't even know what your graphs are trying to show. What are they? Who did them? And why aren't they the IPCC data?
You stated that no IPCC predictions have been accurate. The graphs posted were taken from the IPCC's third assessment report, showing their predicted temperatures against actual temp values. Quite clearly graph (c), all forcings, shows an accurate simulation of temperatures. More here.
Original post by pjm600
No, you said there has been no warming since 1998, not that temp increase has flat lined. There quite clearly has been warming since 1998, so your initial point is incorrect.
You said "a potential halt to sea ice disappearing", sea ice has not stopped melting:
That's by the Polar Science Center, Washington uni, link
You stated that no IPCC predictions have been accurate. The graphs posted were taken from the IPCC's third assessment report, showing their predicted temperatures against actual temp values. Quite clearly graph (c), all forcings, shows an accurate simulation of temperatures. More here.
You said "a potential halt to sea ice disappearing", sea ice has not stopped melting:
That's by the Polar Science Center, Washington uni, link
You stated that no IPCC predictions have been accurate. The graphs posted were taken from the IPCC's third assessment report, showing their predicted temperatures against actual temp values. Quite clearly graph (c), all forcings, shows an accurate simulation of temperatures. More here.
I fully agree with your viewpoint on the ice coverage. However as accurate measurements only go back to 1980. If ice coverage is cyclic then there nothing to say it won't recover. I guess we'll only get to observe that over the next few years.
You've linked an interesting graph showing IPcC assessments on their projections . I'll be honest and say that I haven't seen those ones before. Even the IPCC acknowledged that global temperatures were above those observed yet you've shown graphs that are completely opposite to what they've said. Also those graphs only go up to 2000. We're in 2013 now.
Original post by SHallowvale
I'd like to know where you got this all from.
He makes it up. None of it comes from a reputable source.
Original post by Tabzqt
I swear you posted all these links on another thread, got debunked, and now you're posting them all again?
Correct
Original post by MatureStudent36
I posted on the other thread and somebody just said that I was wrong without showing any evidence to the contrary.
Rubbish, I wiped the floor with you. Frequently, your own links are enough to prove you are hopelessly wrong.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by MatureStudent36
So after seeing no global warming for 18 years, a potential halt to ice disappearing in the North Pole, and every climate prediction made not coming true. The IPCC is now even more confident that global warming is man made.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKBRE98Q0A820130927?irpc=932
Opinions please
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKBRE98Q0A820130927?irpc=932
Opinions please
I move to propose they're living on their own planet and keep getting theirs mixed up with ours?
Considering the basic science doesn't gel with the hypothesis (human released CO2 causing global armageddon when it's a mere fraction addition to a trace gas with poor thermal insulation qualities), and every prediction offered so far has fallen woefully short or been out-right wrong (suggesting a bit of crystal ball future telling lack of understanding, or wilful misguidance) and overall fact there is more the climate system than mean nasty humans, I just immediately switch off as soon as someone mentions the IPCC or human caused global warming/cooling.
Our records are geologically pitifully short, and the Earth has been much cooler and much warmer than the present (periods with mass glaciations and with no ice at the poles) and proven to be highly variable even within our historical records (if the IPCC and 'climatologists' cared to look) yet somehow the concept of natural change and variation even within short periods seems to baffle these people and all somehow proves that humans are causing the 'death of the planet'.
It's sort of become Creationism or 'pro-life' to me now, a dead-end and out-right flawed position pursued for a variety of reasons, all understandable, but all having little to do with genuine fact.
Pastafarian: Saying you 'wiped the floor' with someone doesn't make it so. Save the overt confidence and hyping of your position for politics, where it actually carries weight. If your position in this matter is just wrong, accept it and move on like any scientist worth their salt would.
(edited 10 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Plagiarism in my open book end of year exams
- weather
- Desire for net zero referendum growing among public, poll finds
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B: 9PL0 3B - 17 June 2022 [Exam Chat]
- dt, this is urgent my assignments due in literally 4 hours.
- English speaking GCSE part of language exam - help
- live concerts / festivals
- Finance ministry ministry
- English paper 2 q5
- why is noone reading my wattpad storyyyy :(
- Conducting research
- Politics a level person edexcel
- Edinburgh vs KCL for English
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B (9PL0 3B) -16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Global warming solution
- Guys have you ever......?
- HSBC 2024 Internships
- forensic science
- Rishi Sunak gives Net Zero speech: PM waters down key policy goals
- PwC Graduate Role
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Which of these A-Level combinations would be the best to study a law degree?A-levels
10
Last reply 1 minute ago
Border Force National Campaign September 2023Last reply 5 minutes ago
lloyds bank 2024 apprenticeshipLast reply 12 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 13 minutes ago
Can a law graduate at SOAS apply to MSc Politics and International Relations at soas?Posted 16 minutes ago
SQA Higher Computing Studies - 20th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 17 minutes ago
A-level English Literature Study Group 2023-2024Last reply 18 minutes ago
Edexcel A-Level Geography Paper 3 | [12th June 2023] Exam ChatLast reply 27 minutes ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 35 minutes ago
Dilemma between university of liverpool and university of bath?Trending
Last reply 41 minutes ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 9 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 41 minutes ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 9 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
