Was that the sound of bets being hedged? "Last year The Mail on Sunday reported a stunning fact: that global warming had ‘paused’ for 16 years. The Met Office’s own monthly figures showed there had been no statistically significant increase in the world’s temperature since 1997. We were vilified. One Green website in the US said our report was ‘utter bilge’ that had to be ‘exposed and attacked’. The Met Office issued a press release claiming it was misleading, before quietly admitting a few days later that it was true that the world had not got significantly warmer since 1997 after all. A Guardian columnist wondered how we could be ‘punished’. But then last week, the rest of the media caught up with our report. On Tuesday, news finally broke of a revised Met Office ‘decadal forecast’, which not only acknowledges the pause, but predicts it will continue at least until 2017. It says world temperatures are likely to stay around 0.43 degrees above the long-term average – as by then they will have done for 20 years. This is hugely significant. It amounts to an admission that earlier forecasts – which have dictated years of Government policy and will cost tens of billions of pounds – were wrong. They did not, the Met Office now accepts, take sufficient account of ‘natural variability’ – the effects of phenomena such as ocean temperature cycles – which at least for now are counteracting greenhouse gas warming. (my bold lettering)." Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now? | Mail Online Here's the Met Office link- http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/decadal-forecasts Notice how they emphasize the experimental nature, and then contradict themselves. "However, both versions are consistent in predicting that we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years." Followed by: "Century-scale projections are less sensitive to natural variability and updates to the 2012 decadal forecast do not necessarily tell us anything about projections of climate change for the coming century."
Gordon, you dog! Let's see, I forecast that within 15 posts a mod will step in and tell everybody to behave, and after 50 posts somebody will get threatened with a stay in the cooler! My popcorn is ready so, Let the games begin!
I am not going to get involved other than to point out this newspaper has always rubbished every warning about climate change. Hardly a day goes by without the owners polarised views featuring in a full page article. The paper is well known for sensationalist, far-right and distorted reporting. In short it is the mortal enemy of everything 'green'.
I like to sit back and watch too Bel'. I found this little item while checking out the USN Hawkbill. "It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated. (This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations." President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 [13] Have no idea who John Daly is but if it's on the internet it has to be true right? The Top of the World FYI: It was minus 2f this morning,but nice and 'cozy' now at almost 2f above.
Oh please, using a "newspaper" as a source on climate change is akin to using our despicable American tabloid press to keep track of alien UFO landings and abductions. The world has experienced 333 consecutive months of global temperatures above the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] Century average, as of November 2012 (December data is still forthcoming). Research shows that over the past 20 years, global sea levels rose 60 percent faster than what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had previously predicted. (emphasis mine) Goto: Climate Progress | ThinkProgress Here is a link to the UK’s Met report which was sort of cheery picked to come up with the “pause” in warming. It is a new way of modeling the temperature variations put into use this year. The latest decadal prediction suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than predicted from the previous prediction issued in December 2011. However, both versions are consistent in predicting that we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years. This means temperatures will remain well above the long-term average and we will continue to see temperatures like those which resulted in 2000-2009 being the warmest decade in the instrumental record dating back to 1850. (emphasis mine) Goto: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/decadal-forecasts
For those of infantile understanding.....as the poles melt off their ice....this cold water will make its way about the earth fooling those expecting themselves to burn with rising temperatures....it is the loss of the ice caps that will cause there to be futility in rebuilding so much so close to the seas as we have always done in the past. I suggest some of you go to those rice fields in your own state and help those farmers who have no water who have made their living in the past by growing rice and feeding the rest of us......see what food you can raise in drought. As you dance the happy dances of those most skeptic of global warming....me hopes you won't soon be hungry for that which may be lost in production. How much must be taken from those who have enjoyed the bread basket so generous to us all, before they can feel the agonies of hunger as are experienced by many countries of lesser good fortune where many can be found who hunger for what reaches the garbage can in our land where foods are taken for "granted" and often wasted regularly as we sit in denial of the possibility of changes. What do you think is deserved?
Victor, you live in New Mexico, right? When was the Anasazi culture at its height? When did it begin to fall apart, and why? You should know that it peaked between 1000 and 1300, which coincides with the medieval optimum (the most extreme global warming period in the last 2000 years). During that period the world became far wetter and the Anasazi were growing bountiful crops on land that is far more arid today. After 1300, when the earth got cooler, the Anasazi began dying out because they could no longer feed that large population. By the 1500's when the Spanish arrived, there were only scattered remnants of what had been a great civilization. That period also coincides with the growth of the mongol culture from the arid steppes of central Asia - that entire region also got much wetter and allowed enormous population growth leading to that whole Genghis Khan conquering China thing... The Vikings were growing barley and wheat in Greenland. Human populations around teh globe flourished. Leaving the causes of "global warming" aside, why do people predict doom and gloom if the earth does warm? We have a historical record from that warmer era demonstrating beyond any doubt that global warming did not flood coastal cities, did not cause drought and did not have any negative effect on human populations. On the contrary, the medieval optimum was a golden period across the globe. Human populations grew. Arid regions became farming regions. Hunter/gatherer bands grew into civilizations. I'm all for global warming!
One other point about the melting ice caps. The ice is fresh water, and is a couple of degrees warmer than the seawater. So the ice melt is warning the Arctic Ocean.
I don't claim to be any great authority on New Mexico populations but I do know that there are many theories about the Anasazi who were only a portion of the civilizations that existed in New Mexico and there are many who do not think they perished but actually moved away so your concluded things there about their demise I do not adhere too......as do many who glibly study history may. I also point out that as many as 20 separate populations in this state have some belief that the Anasazi could be a portion of their ancestors. As to the population reductions..........they didn't happen until European(Columbian) diseases decimated the populations in this state and across the entire continent. I would say populations here were very healthy in numbers before the arrival of the European. The revised estimates by anthropologists and historians have only been upward for the estimates of that population. When the Spaniards arrived is where we differ....you in your study and me in my study as it is my opinion that the Spaniards arrived to a very healthy and strong population in numbers of indigenous(Anasazi plus many others) and only had limited success in subjugating the pueblo like descendants of the Anasazi perhaps.....but completely were unable to prevail against the great Indians of the Plains such as the Commanches and Navajos and other plains tribes. It is your shallow studies that lead me to not be influenced by your conclusions as if you had even studied the Indians you would know that they were strong and not an easy population to defeat even when the Americans had to pursue them to make safe a westward migration. It is not by chance that the tactics of Geronimo must be studied at West Point. It is clear you maintain a view where invading Europeans only wiped out small remnants of a population whereas the Indian who studies his past looks at the same happening you so lightly gloss over and knows it as a "Genocide" of his people knowing more what the actual numbers were like from the more scientific and modern knowledge that has come to light. You are free to make your snap conclusion of any aspects of history, but you will be met with the opposition of those who study in depth these changes we both foresee. The changes you mention I do not deny....I simply say they are not of the magnitude that our current change is so they cannot be compared. Yes there was destructive gaseous eruption that once changed our planet, such things I know are possible and our current climate change may not be as great as that however we of coarse cannot rule out that happening again.......even at the same time so who knows? I do not see Global warming as a "beneficial" change to be embraced in blind acceptance as so many are choosing denial. Denial means they will not prepare for the change whether it is to be more tropical or less tropical, denial will cripple the adjustments man has to make for any kind of change. What is more foolish? To prepare for a change we see coming or to deny that anything is happening so that we do not do things that could be done.
Whereas the reporting in The Guardian is completely objective, impartial, and wouldn't dream of labelling people "deniers" just because they disagree with its stance.
Perished or moved away or blended into various tribes that exist today, misses the point. The point is that the entire southwest had greater precipitation during the medieval optimum which allowed that population to thrive and form a stable and advanced civilization. At Mesa Verde they were actually growing crops on top of the mesas on land that will only support cacti and scrub today. Geologists and anthropologists know beyond a doubt that this period had much more rainfall than today. It's science. It's history. We don't have to rely on computer models or far-fetched theories to know what global warming would bring. The medieval optimum is within the written history of many parts of the globe. We know exactly what happened during that period. It's recorded in European, Asian, Arab literature, in Viking sagas - it's the historical record. We don't have to guess.
The paper was reporting on a press release by the Met Office, the same Met Office which has been touted as the "last word" on MMGW for a decade now, and has finally admitted it made a mistake in its forecasts by not fully accounting for natural variations. And I also posted the same link to the Met Office report as you did, at the end of the post. You effectively cut and pasted the exact same bits. Here's something I pointed out earlier, and everyone conveniently ignored in their haste to slam the newspaper rather than the Met Office release- "However, both versions are consistent in predicting that we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years." Followed by: "Century-scale projections are less sensitive to natural variability and updates to the 2012 decadal forecast do not necessarily tell us anything about projections of climate change for the coming century." So they don't necessarily tell us anything about projections of future change for the coming century, but we can take their word for the predicted "near-record levels" of global temperatures...after admitting there has been no rise in temperatures since the 1990s?! They were wrong a few years ago, but now can trust them?! Remember my comment about bets being hedged?
A simpler time...There is alot to worry about in THIS day and age...many coastal countries let alone communities...Billions in infrastructure on the coast...If there are places that benefit from the wetter conditions, others suffer...Weather paterns change, people starve elsewhere...Cyclones (hurricanes) are just one weather event affected...they become stronger, bigger, and more destrcuctive...we live in a VERY fragile bubble..."Weez be shi#ting in our owns nests!"
You can worry about "Global Warming" - last I heard, we we were coming out of the most "recent" ice age. Global warming might bite us in the butt 1,000-10,000 years from now. However, I am more concerned about the world population growth, given that the current "median" growth rate projects a likely 9.2 billion people on the Earth by 2050. That's roughly another 2 billion mouths to feed, when we can't adequately feed the ones that are on the planet now. However, population control has never been a "popular" topic. After all, global warming has Al Gore and he invented the internet. So, it seems to me that population growth is a much more immediate problem than global warming. Yet, no one even wants to debate the matter given the many "negative" connotations of "population control."
I don't read The Guardian but I do get The Mail. Nearly every day their is a sniping article aimed at' Global Warming/Wind Farms/EU/Immigrants/ the BBC and anything else they call 'liberal' What is more they regularly run anti-US opinion pieces. I have read enough of their book extracts to know the paper will take a small part of a large issue and twist/distort it if it suits the agenda of Rothmere. Please do not lecture me about newspaper bias because I know full well what it is. It manifests itself fully in the completely unbalanced way The Mail deals with 'green issues'. In short they lie.
Of course, no other non-US paper carries anti-US opinion pieces; the Daily Mail invented the genre and holds exclusive copyright. What, pray, is Rothmere's "agenda"? I remember asking someone else a while back to provide me with a list of "acceptable" newspapers to post links from, since it appears no-one actually reads past where it says "Daily Mail" before launching into apoplexy mode.
Put simply I am not the type that believes everything he reads in the newspaper. Others(it would seem) are not so discerning!
Some good points...but forget food (its an infinite resource)...Its the WATER wars this century that will mark our time... One thing that may strain and indeed bring down the union...
Then, as now, people lived on the coasts. Copenhagen, Brest, Le Havre, Lisbon and a hundred other cities around the world were on the coasts. They did not flood.
