Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumMurdoch enlists Daily Mail in desperate attempt to shore up debunked WSJ climate piece
This is the Thames River, and it's frozen. Brrr! Does that look like warming to you?
"The supposed consensus on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.
The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 1369 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Murdoch enlists Daily Mail in desperate attempt to shore up debunked WSJ climate piece (Original Post)
wtmusic
Jan 2012
OP
Just think of the crap that was in the Thames then, one could walk on the carcass's...
Historic NY
Jan 2012
#1
Historic NY
(37,453 posts)1. Just think of the crap that was in the Thames then, one could walk on the carcass's...
and other solid waste dumped there.....
On a serious note the Hudson River used to freeze over too...before the Coast Guard cutters arrived. My father talked about driving across the river in his old 49 Plymouth.
Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)2. Where is the piece debunked? You should link to that as well.
n/t
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)3. You're right.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/29/413961/panic-attack-murdoch-wall-street-journal-finds-16-scientists-long-debunked-climate-lies/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/31/308528/scientist-the-murdoch-media-empire-has-cost-humanity-perhaps-one-or-two-decades-of-time-in-the-battle-against-climate-change/
Nothing new in the WSJ article.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/31/308528/scientist-the-murdoch-media-empire-has-cost-humanity-perhaps-one-or-two-decades-of-time-in-the-battle-against-climate-change/
Nothing new in the WSJ article.
Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)4. Thank you for posting this response and the links!
Excellent articles, all.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)6. Which links to the debunking by the Met Office itself
which is thoroughly pissed off at the Mail:
This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.
Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.
...
Furthermore despite criticism of a paper published by the Met Office he chose not to ask us to respond to his misconceptions. The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun.
It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCCs B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/
Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.
...
Furthermore despite criticism of a paper published by the Met Office he chose not to ask us to respond to his misconceptions. The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun.
It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCCs B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/