Climate Research

[BlasterBates]

You can see where it's heading:

University of Colorado and NASA Research Center to Study Sun’s Effects on Earth’s Climate | Watts Up With That?

...of course this is a complete waste of money because the sun doesn't affect the earth's temperature at all, it's all CO2.

[DimPrawn]

Global warming has halted: That's what happened to 'warmest year on record' | Mail Online

But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications - not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.

Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.

Actually, with the exception of 1998 - a 'blip' year when temperatures spiked because of a strong 'El Nino' effect (the cyclical warming of the southern Pacific that affects weather around the world) - the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years.

They go up a bit, then down a bit, but those small rises and falls amount to less than their measuring system's acknowledged margin of error. They have no statistical significance and reveal no evidence of any trend at all.




Fifteen years and the so called catastrophic rise in temperatures have yet to materialise. How many decades do we have to put up with the lies of Global Warming before the scam is revealed?

[d000hg]

Fifteen years and the so called catastrophic rise in temperatures have yet to materialise. How many decades do we have to put up with the lies of Global Warming before the scam is revealed?

Enough for it to be statistically relevant. 15 years is like rejecting a new football manager after the first 2 games, or a new PM before the first budget.

[VectraMan]

Enough for it to be statistically relevant. 15 years is like rejecting a new football manager after the first 2 games, or a new PM before the first budget.

How many years is that? 50? 100? 500? Give us a number.

[EternalOptimist]

Enough for it to be statistically relevant. 15 years is like rejecting a new football manager after the first 2 games, or a new PM before the first budget.

er.. no.

you have to look at what they said would happen in those 15 years. Maybe they shouldnt have made those daft short term predictions, but they did.

[DimPrawn]

er.. no.

you have to look at what they said would happen in those 15 years. Maybe they shouldnt have made those daft short term predictions, but they did.

WHS.

The World is supposed to be a crisp by now based on the IPCC/Met office models and every human being dead.

[shaunbhoy]

WHS.

The World is supposed to be a crisp by now based on the IPCC/Met office models and every human being dead.

But just to be on the safe side, and to show us they are not going to let the facts get in the way of a "convenient policy", they will still tax us anyway.

[Doggy Styles]

Enough for it to be statistically relevant. 15 years is like rejecting a new football manager after the first 2 games, or a new PM before the first budget.

Maybe, but how many years is the tip of the hockey stick that caused the whole debate? Statistically not a lot longer in the grand scheme of things. It's like sacking a manager after 5 games.

[d000hg]

How many years is that? 50? 100? 500? Give us a number.

How would I know? I know enough stats that 15 data points is tiny, but not enough to tell you how big the sample size needs to be. Ask a statistician.

[EternalOptimist]

How would I know? I know enough stats that 15 data points is tiny, but not enough to tell you how big the sample size needs to be. Ask a statistician.

If a manager came in and said he would win the first game 3-0 and the second game 3-2 after extra time, and that their would be a penalty in the 35th minute in the second game

you would want to know how he could make such specific claims in such an uncertain and variable environment. Then you would indeed sack him after he lost the first two games.