 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Posted on 08/09/2007 1:52:23 PM PDT by Brujo
Global warming is forecast to set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record, scientists reported on Thursday.
Climate experts have long predicted a general warming trend over the 21st century spurred by the greenhouse effect, but this new study gets more specific about what is likely to happen in the decade that started in 2005.
To make this kind of prediction, researchers at Britain's Met Office -- which deals with meteorology -- made a computer model that takes into account such natural phenomena as the El Nino pattern in the Pacific Ocean and other fluctuations in ocean circulation and heat content.
A forecast of the next decade is particularly useful, because climate could be dominated over this period by these natural changes, rather than human-caused global warming, study author Douglas Smith said by telephone.
In research published in the journal Science, Smith and his colleagues predicted that the next three or four years would show little warming despite an overall forecast that saw warming over the decade.
"There is ... particular interest in the coming decade, which represents a key planning horizon for infrastructure upgrades, insurance, energy policy and business development," Smith and his co-authors noted.
The real heat will start after 2009, they said.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Actually, this model apparently uses, as causation factors, non-CO2 factors. Of course, the warmingists will blame CO2.
As soon as I read the words "computer model", my eyes glazed over and I was overcome with ennui.
So far, the computer models have been something to laugh about.
If I were guessing, I'd guess the "model" still shows 1998 to be the hottest year on record, rather than the actual hottest year, 1934.
1998 was not the warmest year on record.
The Global Warming Con Men have chosen 2009 because it is far enough in the future to cushion their current missteps and to allow for the very crucial time needed for them to railroad the public — through elected officials and the royal icons of Hollywood — into opening it’s wallet for the biggest money-grab in history.
This change was for the United States only, NOT the global temperature data. The effect on the global temperature data was negligible, and 1998 remains the hottest year, globally, ever observed.
I’m not the scietific kind-of-guy...but I’ve noticed this year we’ve had “normal” weather that we had 10 years ago. The last few years we’ve had extremely hot weather starting in April lasting through the summer. This year it has been moderate and the only real hot weather started in August.
I’m looking for snow in the Sand Hills of North Carolina this year.
We are doomed... DOOMED... the weather is not static. The weather is NOT STATIC!!!!! Arrggghhhhh!!!!
Sorry, I lost my mind for a minute.
Clicking on that link was the last place I thought I would see a reputable research banner (on top). PCR is very elusive but a very good panel to be a member of. Thanks!
|
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
I was there in that year too. I thought I was living in Hell!
Yep, the 1998 bit is a terradiddle.
OH, like Y2K? LOL
If 1934 was the hottest on record and 4 of the 10 hottest yearswere in the 30’s, then we may have to plan for big trouble even if “global warming” is not a cause. There is the average 11 year sunspot cycle which causes climate variation. Then there is the approximate 22 year cycle which is stronger. There is probably an even more extreme 88 year cycle.
So what does all this indicate for our possible future. For one, after 2009 we should be hitting one of the 11 year cycle peaks with attendant climate problems. If you add 88 to 1934, you get 2022. Thus the 2020’s could be a reprise of those terrible dust bowl years. Plan ahead. Tear up your lawns and plant cactus, whereever you live.
Is that when the islamists set fire to Saudi oilfields and the nukes start flying?
Media Rediscovers Homelessness
Do you have any statistics on the actual rates of homelessness during those years, and several years after the end of the Clinton administration. If democrats are actually more concerned with homelessness, then a couple of years after Clinton came into office there should have been a decrease. On the other hand, a Republican Congress, and/or the welfare reform push could have had some influence. Dates for these influences and the actual statistics would be very interesting to see.
:’)
Was it Wimpy that said that. You know, of Popeye fame?
False.
A trained monkey could be a journalist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.