by MegaDude 47 Replies latest jw friends
2009 - the second hottest year on record, at the end of the hottest decade on record - just aks NASA - its not rocket science
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
The underlying facts remain unchanged despite all the hysterics flailing around the denier echo-chamber.
Don't let 'em suck you back in, Besty.
Besty:
2009 - the second hottest year on record, at the end of the hottest decade on record - just aks NASA - its not rocket science
A fact which, I should repeat again, does not contradict the actual message Phil Jones was saying. Jones, who accepts Man Made Global Warming and denies Global Cooling, was basically saying that we were in a plateau since 1995 (Please refer to questions B and C in Phil Jones original BBC interview at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm#). To those educated on the subject this should not be surprising since we had a previous plateau from the 1940's to about 1976. The Global averages basically flatlined and even had a very slight chill but did not go back to what they were before. Then in the 1970's things took off and we now have another plateau but again, nothing is going down.
Just because the last plateau lasted for 30 years, we should not expect that this one will have to last that long. As I've repeatedly said, to the point of mindnumbing repetition, when summer time ice in the Arctic substantially disappears, it will not only have a direct effect on our weather warming or not, but it will increase warming in it's immediate region (open blue water absorbs more heat than white ice which reflects heat). That will accelarate the melting of the Siberian permafrost. That permafrost is already releasing large and measurable amounts of methane into our atmosphere (methane has 20 times the ability to insulate heat as carbon dioxide). This accelaration will create a runaway effect which, because of the huge amounts methane producing material buried in the permafrost, will have devastating consequences on Human Society.
Every prediction about the Arctic Ice Cap being ice free during summer time has proven to be very conservative and an underestimate. Originally, around the year 2000 the predictions were for the year 2100. Then as the Ice Cap was being observed shrinking in an accelarating manner those predictions were for 2050 then 2040. Now as of 2010 the predictions are for 10-20 years with some saying 5 years. It has also been stated that within half the estimated time the Arctic Ocean will be basically open seas with scattered ice floes. That is more than enough to create the effects previously mentioned.
villabolo
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Filed under:
— group @ 15 February 2010Yesterday, the Daily Mail of the UK published a predictably inaccurate article entitled “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995″.
The title itself is a distortion of what Jones actually said in an interview with the BBC. What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved. The warming trend consequently doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance. But it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years–a point wehavemadecountless times at RealClimate. It is also worth noting that the CRU record indicates slightly less warming than other global temperature estimates such as the GISS record.
The article also incorrectly equates instrumental surface temperature data that Jones and CRU have assembled to estimate the modern surface temperature trends with paleoclimate data used to estimate temperatures in past centuries, falsely asserting that the former “has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’”.
Finally, the article intentionally distorts comments that Jones made about the so-called “Medieval Warm Period”. Jones stated in his BBC interview that “There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia” and that “For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.”
These are statements with which we entirely agree, and they are moreover fully consistent with the conclusions of the most recent IPCC report, and the numerous peer-reviewed publications on this issue since. Those conclusions are that recent Northern Hemisphere warming is likely unprecedented in at least a millennium (at least 1300 years, in fact), and that evidence in the Southern Hemisphere is currently too sparse for confident conclusions. Mann et al in fact drew those same conclusions in their most recent work on this problem (PNAS, 2008).
Unfortunately, these kinds of distortions are all too common in the press nowadays and so we must all be prepared to respond to those journalists and editors who confuse the public with such inaccuracies.
Update 2/16/10. Phil Jones has confirmed to us that our interpretations of his comments in the BBC interview are indeed the correct ones, and that he agrees with the statements in our piece above. He and his CRU colleagues have also put up an response to some of the false allegations in a previous piece in the UK Guardian. We’ll report further such developments as they happen.
Besty, back by popular demand!
Global Warming is real! Repent! Or this be just around the corner!
Take that, skeptics, deniars and apostates!
Hi besty. You know it's my duty to do this, right?
