It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released...
page: 7share:
reply to post by ollncasino
Great news! Star and flag.
Posted so I can go back later.
Just to confirm.. Quebec is currently experiencing its most early snow since decades. I know, I live in it.
Great news! Star and flag.
Posted so I can go back later.
Just to confirm.. Quebec is currently experiencing its most early snow since decades. I know, I live in it.
edit on 14-10-2012 by swan001
because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by auraelium
It was the UK MET office(The most pro AGW organisation on the planet) that released this info , you dork, lol
Er, no. That's the point.
This thread should really be in the Hoax forum because the newstory upon which it based is a complete fabrication. The "journalist" David Rose made it all up. He hasn't seen a secret Met Office report becuase no such report exists. And he didn't even bother contacting them before making up his lies.
The Story is a HOAX!
Originally posted by swan001
Just to confirm.. Quebec is currently experiencing its most early snow since decades. I know, I live in it.
I have been noticing that seasons come in earlier and earlier in the past couple years, like if the weather is on a 360 days per year.
Originally posted by AndyMayhew
Apologies if this has already been covered, but the reason why, as David Rose says "until today, it has not been reported" is because until David Rose made it up, there was nothing to report.
metofficenews.wordpress.com...
Not true. See the response by the Met Office to David Rose's questions below from your own link
You can see our full response to all of the questions Mr Rose did ask us below:
Hi David,
Here’s a response to your questions. I’ve kept them as concise as possible but the issues you raise require considerable explanation.
Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.”
The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.
MetOfficeNews
It would appear that the David Rose has indeed been using data that he and the Met Office agree is genuine.
David Rose asserts that the data shows zero global warming since 1996, while the Met Office calculates 0.05 of a degree's global warming over the same period.
The Met Office in fact has confirmed the underlying data, although I have no link to the exact data David Rose and the Met Office are both using, although it would appear to be that of the Met Office buried somewhere in here
We have been destroying our environment. There are holes the size of entire countries in our Ozone layer. We've lost countless acreage of forests.
Our air, water, and land is extremely polluted.
It doesn't #ing matter if global warming is true or not. We have been destroying our environment in ludicrous ways the past 150 years.
But this appears to just be another classic ATS dumbbell moment: Reading an article that says an organization did or said something, and believing the article without checking if the organization actually did it.
People lie on the internet. Don't believe something just because it fits with your notions of reality.
It doesn't #ing matter if global warming is true or not. We have been destroying our environment in ludicrous ways the past 150 years.
But this appears to just be another classic ATS dumbbell moment: Reading an article that says an organization did or said something, and believing the article without checking if the organization actually did it.
People lie on the internet. Don't believe something just because it fits with your notions of reality.
Originally posted by AndyMayhew
This thread should really be in the Hoax forum because the newstory upon which it based is a complete fabrication. The "journalist" David Rose made it all up. He hasn't seen a secret Met Office report becuase no such report exists. And he didn't even bother contacting them before making up his lies.
The Story is a HOAX!
No offense but you haven't even read the link you supplied earlier.
David Rose has indeed spoken to the Met Office. On the other hand you are correct that no report exists. The original newspaper article, despite the headline, made that clear.
MetOffiiceNews
The data was quietly released.
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.
Daily Mail
The question of whether the data exists or not doesn't appear to be in question between Rose and the Met Office,
edit on 14-10-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)
This is what they say:
They said he chose arbitrary misleading points that greatly downplayed the real effects.
I like how you quoted that paragraph, but left out the parts about him misrepresenting the data...
The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming. As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.
They said he chose arbitrary misleading points that greatly downplayed the real effects.
I like how you quoted that paragraph, but left out the parts about him misrepresenting the data...
edit on 14-10-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-10-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)
Much of northern Europe experienced record breaking rainfall this Autumn, which was largely due to increased temperature of the surface waters of northern Atlantic ocean.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Much of northern Europe experienced record breaking rainfall this Autumn, which was largely due to increased temperature of the surface waters of northern Atlantic ocean.
I could say that you have just cherry picked data, but you have provided no data at all!
Long dry spell across northern Europe adds to food price fear
reply to post by Renegade2283
Yeah who made that?
Did you make it?
Did you do the research yourself?
Or were was that fed to you with a spoon?
baaa baaa
Yeah who made that?
Did you make it?
Did you do the research yourself?
Or were was that fed to you with a spoon?
baaa baaa
Originally posted by Ghost375
We have been destroying our environment. There are holes the size of entire countries in our Ozone layer. We've lost countless acreage of forests. Our air, water, and land is extremely polluted.
It doesn't #ing matter if global warming is true or not. We have been destroying our environment in ludicrous ways the past 150 years.
But this appears to just be another classic ATS dumbbell moment: Reading an article that says an organization did or said something, and believing the article without checking if the organization actually did it.
People lie on the internet. Don't believe something just because it fits with your notions of reality.
Yes and the mainstream news, mainstream science, governments,
would never ever dare lie to you.
Sounds to me you're also believing something that fits with your notions of reality.
edit on 14-10-2012 by balon0 because: (no reason
given)
Originally posted by ollncasino
I could say that you have just cherry picked data, but you have provided no data at all!
Long dry spell across northern Europe adds to food price fear
That link is to a one year old "news" (can we call it "olds" in cases like this? ) article.
Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by ollncasino
Are you? Is anyone at the daily mail?... 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing
Are you a climate change scientists by any chance?
global warming. I would rather take their word for it over some sensationalist and misleading newspaper article..
Haha. Where did you get that number? So. You are saying that of the scientists who believe in global warming 97% agree humans are the cause?
Reminds me of this. Haha
60% of the time, it works every time.
There have been studies.
Originally posted by ArMaP
Long dry spell across northern Europe adds to food price fear
That link is to a one year old "news" (can we call it "olds" in cases like this? ) article.
Could I hazard a guess that while heavy rain is a sign of global warming, a dry spell the year before will also be construed as evidence of global warming by the global warming lobby?
Melting ice, global warming, freezing ice, global warming, heavy rain, global warming.
Dry spell, global warming?
Swinging gate, global warming?
Oh,and those scientists, the ones in the op's article,well,this is the graph they have at the universities site.
www.cru.uea.ac.uk...
www.cru.uea.ac.uk...
Originally posted by kdog1982
Yep,they have being lying to us all and all they're data is rigged.
co2science.org...
[sarcasm]
I followed your link.
You do know that most of the data entries stop in 2008 (some 2005) and that we are not looking at temperature data plotted year on year, but rather 'trends' being plotted?
Are they afraid of year on year data?
Interestingly, the data for the last 16 years from 3,000 global measuring stations, using Met office data, according to David Rose show a zero temperature rise, while the Met Office calculate that the temperature has risen by 0.05% of a degree.
MetOfficeNews
Of course the 0 to 0.05% of one degree increase in global temperature over the last 16 years is based on yearly data, so you may not be interested in it.
Originally posted by ollncasino
Could I hazard a guess that while heavy rain is a sign of global warming, a dry spell the year before will also be construed as evidence of global warming by the global warming lobby?
More extreme weather is expected from global warming, resulting in more (and mostly stronger) rain and more dry spells.
Melting ice, global warming, freezing ice, global warming, heavy rain, global warming.
Dry spell, global warming?
If it's not at the same time in the same place, yes, it can be a result of global warming.
Originally posted by kdog1982
Oh,and those scientists, the ones in the op's article,well,this is the graph they have at the universities site.
www.cru.uea.ac.uk...
University of East Anglia?
Did you miss the scandal about Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia having suppressed data that contradicted one of his paper's on climate change?
Climate change email scandal shames the university and requires resignations
Still, it is just one paper and he is only the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia.
Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by ollncasino
Normally - as most of you will know - I am a pretty staunch supporter of science & engineering, but in this case, I thoroughly agree.
The climate scientists who have been supporting this man-made stance on climate change have all been rewarded with (bloody stupid) grants for supporting the government (most notably the Australian government) in spearheading a whole new tax. The grants mean diddle ....seriously, we have meteorologists who do the hard yards to collect this data and do the calculations. Giving a grant to some fool climate scientist because he/she will backup Gillard & Wong is just throwing money to the wind.
)
The grants aren't a "reward'. They are wages in return for work, otherwise known as a "job". And most of the time the grants don't even pay the principal investigator (full-time faculty) who wrote them---they instead pay for the graduate students, technicians, and equipment. It isn't like the private sector. The professor's salary is fixed. Over the long run getting more grants might get his promotions to go faster, but the outcome on his personal finances isn't that large.
The grant-givers also have no financial motivation to give money to one particular outcome or another especially when there is no commercialization potential as in basic climatology research.
Meteorologists don't do the calculations because the problems involved in meteorology are not the same as in climate.
For weather you can take many observations such as radiative forcing and sea surface temperatures as direct inputs from observations--assumptions---and make weather predictions from them, because the timescales on which the former change (decades/years/months) are much slower than the timescales for weather (days/weeks). Climatology is more involved with the long term trends---and interacts with meteorology when attempting to make specific localized predictions (vs global predictions) about what will happen locally when the longer term parameters change.
edit on 14-10-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)