drought, usa

[Old Rocks]

I am happy we are finally seeing some much needed rain in the mid-west today.

It is so strange that a few years ago there was so much rain that it busted every levy on the Mississippi River from Hannibal, Missouri to St. Louis Missouri. But now they have the largest drought in 50 years.

One of the primary predictions of AGW is that the weather swings will get wider and wilder, with an overall warming trend. And that is exactly what we are seeing. Jenifer Francis, a Phd meteorologist explains part of what is happening in this lecture.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Frankie Boy, have you a link for that?

"BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil "Hide the Decline" Jones: Yes..."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Still going with that lie.

 

[RollingThunder]

Phil Jones said there's been no warming

Now Frankie Boy, have you a link for that?

"BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Like the true retard that you are, CrazyFruitcake, you continue to repeat your long since debunked denier cult myths, ad nauseum, long after any sane person would have just accepted the facts. BTW, "no statistically significant global warming" does not equal "no warming", as you so ignorantly and stupidly assume.


Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
BBC News
By Richard Black - Environment correspondent,
10 June 2011
(excerpts)
Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not 'statistically' significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in February 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

 

[westwall]

Now Frankie Boy, have you a link for that?

"BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Like the true retard that you are, CrazyFruitcake, you continue to repeat your long since debunked denier cult myths, ad nauseum, long after any sane person would have just accepted the facts. BTW, "no statistically significant global warming" does not equal "no warming", as you so ignorantly and stupidly assume.


Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
BBC News
By Richard Black - Environment correspondent,
10 June 2011
(excerpts)
Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not 'statistically' significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in February 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.


Read more: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[westwall]

More facts for the rw's to deny:

Food shortages could force world into vegetarianism, warn scientists | Global development | The Guardian

http://www.foodingredientsfirst.com...etarian-Diet-According-to-SIWIFAO-Report.html

Vegetarianism Needed to Stem Drought-Related Food Crisis, Scientists Say - ProCon.org

Could the Drought Grow Vegetarians? | Voices of Compassion

All sorts of "coulds" there nuddly. But hey all the doom and gloom is telling you that vegetarianism would be the result...isn't that what all those libs want anyway? So what's the problem?

 

[RollingThunder]

"BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Like the true retard that you are, CrazyFruitcake, you continue to repeat your long since debunked denier cult myths, ad nauseum, long after any sane person would have just accepted the facts. BTW, "no statistically significant global warming" does not equal "no warming", as you so ignorantly and stupidly assume.


Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
BBC News
By Richard Black - Environment correspondent,
10 June 2011
(excerpts)
Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the "ClimateGate" affair. Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not 'statistically' significant - a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change. But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are "real". Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance. If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20. Last year's analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line. "The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis." Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in February 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.

Read more: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

Oh walleyed, you silly old retard, you're just going to try to ignore the rebuttal to your denier cult myth in post #80??? LOLOLOLOLOL. Close your eyes, stick your head in the sand (or, more likely, up your butt), try to deny reality all you want, but it doesn't make any difference to the melting ice caps and glaciers or to the thousand other unmistakeable signs of a warming planet.

Here's the facts again, right from the Met Office, about your idiotic quote from David Rose's error filled lying article, so let's see you try to ignore them again....I'm sure you're retarded and brainwashed enough to try.....

Met Office official news team
An article by David Rose appears today in the Mail on Sunday under the title: ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago...It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains
some misleading information
...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. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade. Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

 

[Old Rocks]

But two posts from now Walleyes will repeat the same lie. It just never ends with him.

 

[RollingThunder]

This first chart should really be titled: 'How Denier Cultists and Scientifically Illiterate Retards View Global Warming'

And here's one showing the long term trend that also includes the BEST project data.