You can see that 2012 was definitely hotter than most of the years before 2000 (all but 1998), but is at the lower end of the pack for this century. It was hotter than 2000, 2001, 2008 and 2011, but cooler than 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010.
The 10-year average will go down slightly for the second year running.
On the one hand, it confirms that lately it is warmer than it used to be. On the other hand it will provide more confirmation for those who say that warming has, at least temporarily, halted.
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past By Charles Onians
Monday 20 March 2000 inShare101 Print A A A Email
Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.
Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.
The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
Freezing temperatures and blanket of snow continue to hold UK in icy grip
Dominic Harris
Monday 21 January 2013 inShare Print A A A Email Suggested Topics
Heathrow Airport Railroad Traffic Snow Essex, England
Freezing temperatures and a blanket of snow will continue their grip on the UK this week - though the nation might at last get a glimpse of the sun.
A layer of snow and icy conditions proved hazardous for motorists yesterday and once again cause disruption on the rail networks and brought hundreds of flights to a halt.
Winter continued to take its toll yesterday. One person was killed in Essex in an accident on the A12 in Essex last night, and drivers are being warned today to take extra care on journeys.
A teenager was left fighting for his life after suffering head injuries in a sledging accident in Middlesbrough and a man was taken to hospital in Kent with broken bones in his face when he was racially attacked after confronting a group of youngsters throwing snowballs at him.
Heavy snow fall has closed two major roads across the Pennines, the A628 Woodhead Pass and the A66 between Brough and Bowes.
The Highways Agency said both routes would be closed for some hours and advised drivers to find alternative routes across the Pennines.
At Heathrow Airport planes are due to be grounded for a fourth day and passengers are advised to check the status of their flights before travelling to the airport.
^^ Comparing weather and climate. A sad lack of understanding, or a deliberate attempt to mislead ?
Exactly what I say whenever I read all these articles talking about Global Warming whenever we have a heatwave or a cold snap or a rainy week.
Weather and climate are two different things.
In fact the first article that Strindberg quoted committed that exact fallacy.
Interestingly, if it warms up more than a certain amount, the Gulf Stream might shut down, in which case England would absolutely freeze. Global climate and local climate change are also two different things.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
^^ Comparing weather and climate. A sad lack of understanding, or a deliberate attempt to mislead ?
I offered no comment. I simply quoted two articles. I wrote none of either article.
If you are genuinely concerned about people with a "sad lack of understanding" who are "comparing weather and climate" then address your attack at Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia - a dominant bed of climate alarmism.
Quote:
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
Dr David Viner has made a complete arse of himself and further brought CRU of UEA into disrepute.
PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams ..........
There is growing evidence that public opinion about climate change is shifting over time. In many countries, surveys reveal that people are becoming less worried, and in some cases more sceptical about climate change, even while awareness of climate change is increasing.
This shift in public opinion has also been documented in Australia. A recent survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, reveals that in 2007–08, 73% of Australians stated that they were concerned about climate change, but by 2011–12 this had fallen to 57%.
Scepticism about climate change can take on many dimensions. Individuals may be unconvinced that global temperatures are increasing (trend sceptics). They may acknowledge the existence of climate change but not believe that human activity contributes to it (attribution sceptics). Or, they may acknowledge its existence, and the role of human activity, but not believe that it is going to have any serious consequences (impact sceptics).
A 2011 CSIRO survey of Australian attitudes to climate change found that about 7% of respondents did not think climate change is happening (trend sceptics). Just over 40% believed it is happening but that it is just a natural fluctuation in the Earth’s temperature (attribution sceptics). There is some evidence however that these different forms of scepticism tend to go hand in hand with each other.
Between 2010-2012 people in several different countries, including Australia, were asked about climate change as part of the International Social Survey Programme. Individuals were asked which environmental problem was the most important for their country. They were able to choose from a list of environmental issues including air pollution, water shortage and climate change. In Australia climate change was identified as the third most important problem after water shortage and using up natural resources.
In Japan, Spain, Germany, Denmark, and Norway, 25% or more of the population identified climate change as the most important concern for their country. In several countries, including Norway, Sweden and Spain, climate change was even ranked as the most important environmental issue.
Another question asked people to judge whether the statement “every time we use coal, oil or gas we contribute to climate change” was definitely true, probably true, probably not true or definitely not true. In Australia 24% believed the statement to be “probably not true” or “definitely not true”. This level of scepticism about the role of fossil fuels in contributing to climate change was higher than any other country.
Some suggest that countries are most likely to downplay or deny the existence of climate change if they have high carbon dioxide emissions and few measures to address climate change. This is thought to be a psychological effect which allows people to avoid the emotional and psychological conflicts that may arise from acknowledging the “uncomfortable truth” that their actions might cause climate change.
In Australia we find that knowledge about the role of fossil fuels in contributing to climate change is strongly related to education, sex and age. For people with Year 11 or below, 57% thought that it was true that fossil fuels contributed to climate change. This compared to three-quarters of those with a university degree. It is also interesting to note that 1 out of 10 respondents with Year 11 or below education answered that they “could not choose” whether they thought the statement was true or not.
Older respondents were also more likely to say that they did not believe coal, oil or gas use had an impact on climate change. Men were also more sceptical: 26% of men believed the statement to be not true compared to 20% of women. Gender differences in belief about climate change have also been found in other research but there is no consensus about what lies behind this gender pattern.
For many people climate change is a remote issue. Their perception of risk is limited by the fact that it is a global and long-term issue, and by the way the debate is framed in the media and who is delivering the message.
Understanding what the general public thinks about climate change is important because attitudes towards climate change shape individual behaviour (including household energy use and use of public transport). Governments require strong public support to implement policies to address climate change.
Scientists Baffled as Report Proves Global Warming Has Stopped
April 15, 2013 by Joe Martino
For scientists, they are now left to continue to speculate why the warming has stopped. While some have made mention of the natural cycles that have been occurring observably over the past half a million years which explain the warming and cooling perfectly, it appears they will continue to ignore the data. You can read more about this here.
While some scientists are speculating that the oceans are holding the heat and hiding it somewhere, it is important to note that there have been no further signs of ocean warming since 2003. Although NASA has stated they have picked up ocean warming they have also stated “The uncertainties with the data are too great. We need to improve our measurements.” Spiegel also reports on some other possibilities including that ocean heat storage may be happening very deep within the oceans. But Doug Smith of the Met Office quotes: “This is very difficult to confirm“. Further, Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI) states “Without intensifying the data measurement network, we are going to have to wait a long time for any proof“.
Some scientists have also made mention of the fact that there exists a possibility the stratosphere may have something to do with the global temperature ‘freeze’. According to Susan Solomon; ”The stratosphere has gotten considerably drier, and so warming at the surface may have been reduced by a quarter.” If that isn’t enough Marotzke says, ”However, climate models do not illustrate stratospheric water vapour very well, the prognoses thus remain vague.”
The truth is, most of what scientists are bringing forth at this time as a possibility have all been addressed in a book written a year ago by a couple of scientists named Fritz Vahenholt and Dr. Sebastian Luning. After the release of the book one year ago, the media tore it apart claiming their theories were crude. It is interesting to see, now that this admission has been released, that their theories were all sound. Moreover, Lüning”s and Vahrenholt’s temperature model for the next 100 years so far has been dead on.
Quite possibly one of the most fascinating remarks Bojanowski makes in his article is “The numerous possible explanations do show just how imprecisely climate is understood.” A man by the name of Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in an ‘Inconvenient Truth.’ Regardless of the fact that hundreds of scientists had the guts to prove him wrong at the time, he still was crowned king due to media manipulation. Now we have this most recent piece of information confirming what many have been saying was obvious over the past 10 years, will the media and government still be able to pull their old tricks?
As an individual who has been heavily investigating global warming for the past 5 years, I have to say that sometimes common sense has to be taken into consideration when we look at things that have a lot of science around them. While it seems paradoxal, it’s very easy for the lure of prestigious scientific claims to overrule what is obvious and in front of us. Yes, science is meant to observe our reality and produce constantly updating theories. However, this is not what happens these days. Money, pride, control, power and manipulation overshadow the true purpose and potential of science.
The team estimates that if carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise rapidly until 2100, melting and shifting ice sheets will add 3.5 to 36.8 cm to sea levels by 2100. "That's our best guess," says David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK, who coordinates the scientists on Ice2sea. "We're confident these are the best projections available."
Models continue to get revised down, I may not get my ocean views at all
My views on this are pretty straightforward - sorry to those of you who disagree I am not stating this to piss people off but because they are my genuine views.
I don't have any doubt that global temperatures are considerably warmer now than they were circa 100 years ago
The reason I say this is because I have at various times of my working career been connected with both the Arctic and the Antarctic - I guarantee you nobody close to those regions or having much to do with them would tell you that in many respects they aren't warming up significantly and observably in the lifetime of people today.
About ten years ago at the AAD in Tasmania I used to have a regular chat with the then Chief Scientist (I was employed there). We sat under a map of Antarctica which had this blue ring around the outside of it - One day i asked him what the blue ring was for and he replied 'That's where we know the whaling boats used to go. That sued to be the edge of the summer ice' at that point some rough calcs brought me to the view that there had been an awfully big amount of ice loss somewhere along the line.
In the last decade or so I have been a lot in Russia, and more than a few times to the very top of Russia. Those guys are looking at having a sea shipping lane open up because of the melting ice and are planning to exploit it. The Russians are also having to deal with the foundations of thousands of buildings above the Arctic circle built on permafrost which is melting and melting fairly quickly in some circumstances.
Sure they are having a cold winter too, and had more snow this year than they have had in ages, but the sea ice is the sea ice and they know that is melting.
Then on top of my basic anecdotal views I have read through countless studies. So I have come to the view that yes the world is warming.
Then I think to myself is it warming because of something the human race is doing? and think to myself that trying to suggest otherwise (given the population explosion over the last 100 or so years and the vastly enlarged human footprint on the place) is probably like trying to deny that smoking is bad for you. Sure it may have taken them ages to prove it to a degree of legal verisimilitude but we are ultimately out in the realms of plausible deniability.
On question like what do we do about it or how to we manage the consequences of it I tend to the view that there is no way known we are going to prevent the carbon going into the air - so that in the long run it will need to be a geo engineering response. Presumably that will cost mega bucks, and it wont bring the world back to any natural norm, it will mean we will have moderated weather from there on in, with those making the bucks presumably able to game it some way to their advantage. But I do think it is likely to lead to some fairly hard core social and economic issues.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
NOAA_graph.gif (64.74 KB)
