1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Global warming stopped 16 years ago...

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by Brian in Oregon, Oct 14, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Choke on this, Al Gore.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

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

    The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
    This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996
    By DAVID ROSE

    PUBLISHED: 16:42 EST, 13 October 2012 | UPDATED: 20:21 EST, 13 October 2012

    Comments (488)
    Share
    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.

    global temperature changes

    Research: The new figures mean that the 'pause' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. This picture shows an iceberg melting in Eastern Greenland

    The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

    This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.

    Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.

    More...
    Wettest start to autumn for 12 years as South West continues to be battered by torrential rain
    Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

    Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

    Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.

    Disagreement: Professor Phil Jones, left, from the University of East Anglia, dismissed the significance of the plateau. Professor Judith Curry, right, from Georgia Tech university in America, disagreed, saying the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’

    Warmer: Since 1880 the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius. This image shows floating icebergs in Greenland

    The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.

    Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.

    Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

    The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.

    At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.

    Flawed science costs us dearly

    Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?

    You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

    From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

    Surprising: News that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years will come as something of a shock. This picture shows drifting ice in Canada

    Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.

    The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.

    They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.

    Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.

    And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.

    It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.

    This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.

    Damage: Global warming has been caused in part by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. This image shows smoke billowing out of a power station

    But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.

    ‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.

    ‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.

    ‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’

    Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

    The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.

    Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’

    Headache: The evidence is beginning to suggest that global warming may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed - a conclusion with enormous policy implications for politicians at Westminster, pictured

    Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.

    Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

    But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’

    Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.

    Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘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.’

    He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote.

    Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economy’s output and models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by private businesses.

    Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.

    Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century – and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.

    The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.

    So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.
     
  2. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    The Environmentalists are scared to death, in their private heart of hearts, that this would happen without any international carbon accord having been implemented...because then they wouldn't be able to take credit for it.


    If Mother Nature fixes herself without any change in behavior from Man...it would kinda blow up their project, wouldn't it?
     
  3. Shooting Jack

    Shooting Jack Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,523
    Location:
    Blackshear, Georgia
    Anyone who has ever attend college know the kind of crap folks will come up with to get monies for their programs. Just sayin Jackie B.
     
  4. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,393
    Envro wackos no longer call it global warming they call it "Climate Change" and it does not matter if the average temp goes up one year and down the next and down one more the third, then back to the first.

    This is their religion and they wil do need be and fight for it to keep it.

    It affords the idenity and power (if we give it to them). It is the holiest of holies to them, it gives their meaningless lives meaning. They feed off the fear and think they have made their contribution to mankind, by limiting his advancement.

    Make no mistake they will never give it up, they will merely repackage it, feed it to the press and join with those who embrace it to make a profit...........or a tax write off.
     
  5. warren

    warren Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    948
    Location:
    Fernley, Nevada
    Global warming may have stopped but not the Gov't subsities that's what is feeding all the advocates

    warren
     
  6. Stl Flyn

    Stl Flyn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    8,733
    I thought you did not believe any scientists?
     
  7. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,393
    Sure I do.

    Here is a report and list of scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by man.

    And that is the key to this whole issue.

    The wackos ignore certain things, like the earth goes through heating and cooling cycles every 100,000 years, long before SUV's were invented. Earth core samples support this.
    http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html


    Other planets are heating up. Are the Martians causing that with their SUV's? I guess it is silly to suggest these changes could be caused by the sun, right? It appears more silly to believe it is caused by man.

    Science should be based on indisputable physics and facts, not on concensus, or someone selling snake oil.


    Oh, and I especially believe the ones who are admitting their research and claims are a hoax!
     
  8. John Galt

    John Galt TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,788
    Anybody who says "the science is settled" like Albore and the other global warming fruitcakes shouldn't be believed- science is never settled, never has been and never will be.
     
  9. Pocatello

    Pocatello Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,547
    A few minutes ago on USAToday

    September tied for world's warmest September on record

    1:24PM EDT October 15. 2012 - September 2012 tied for the warmest September on record worldwide, scientists from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration announced Monday.

    The average global temperature in September was 60.21°F, or 1.21°F above the 20th-century average. This was the same reading measured in September 2005.

    Most areas of the world experienced higher-than-average monthly temperatures, including central Russia, Japan, western Australia, northern Argentina, Paraguay, western Canada and southern Greenland.

    September marked the 331st month in a row with a global temperature above the 20th-century average. The last below-average temperature for any month was February 1985.

    In the Arctic, sea ice extent averaged 1.39 million square miles for the month, resulting in the lowest monthly sea ice extent on record. Conversely, on the opposite pole, Antarctic sea ice reached its all-time highest daily extent on record on Sept. 26.
     
  10. Tron

    Tron Supporting Vendor Supporting Vendor

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    6,673
    Global warming is a fact. I just don't understand why some people refuse to accept that Man IS the cause. It's pretty obviouse that with over 6 BILLION people, the planet is sinking with the weight of the human race.
     
  11. shot410ga

    shot410ga Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,778
    I waa all about Grant Money....
     
  12. Hammer1

    Hammer1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,595
    .

    Can't remember.

    Which will get here first ?

    The coming Ice Age or the Global Warming ?

    Will I get rich quicker buying depressed housing in Las Vegas or speculating in Calgary ?

    .
     
  13. mtimney

    mtimney TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    I just love it when people who typically rage against 'liberal media' then rage against so-called liberal causes while using a source like UK's Daily Mail as a 'legitimate' (HA!!) source to prove a point.

    The Daily Mail is a freakin' tabloid! It has about as much credibility as The National Enquirer. Don't believe me? Go to its website and check it out yourself: http://www.dailymail.co.uk

    Brian in Oregon--- There has been some bad science regarding climate change, but now virtually EVERY climeatologist in the world accepts man-caused climate change as 'real.' If you're going to throw out the cumulative knowledge of thousands of scientists you're going to have to do better with your evidence. And 'no,' Fox News doesn't count as a legitimate source either.

    Mark T.
     
  14. Johnny

    Johnny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,804
    Depends upon which "scientists" one believes. The idea of global warming will cost big business money. The Republican party is controlled by big business so it is easy to see where people line up.
     
  15. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,969
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    It is still a HOAX and Mark T. looks and sounds like a troll from another site I visit as regular as I do TS.

    Your not kb or crookedshooter are you Mark?

    You have ALL the markings of a liberal troll just on the FEW post you've made here.

    When did you register?
     
  16. John Galt

    John Galt TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,788
    mtimney is yet another liberal troll who shows up just prior to every election to spew the liberal BS line. He will slither away as soon as the election is over.
     
  17. Hammer1

    Hammer1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    1,595
    .

    Which publications or news programs do you consider more legitimate than the National Inquirer or the UK Daily Mail ?

    MSNBC ?

    .
     
  18. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Mark T, thanks for the liberal agenda spin.
     
  19. mtimney

    mtimney TS Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Okay... You all have provided three classic examples of poor critical thinking:

    1) Make a firm decision based upon too few observations. (You've done exactly what you claim the climate scientists have done! Oh, the irony!!!) Yes...I haven't posted here much, but I just came back to trapshooting after a 35 year layoff and just joined the site. To state with certainty that I'm a liberal troll based upon my number of posts is really poor thinking. To check my credentials you can see my other posts here on TS. I have a lifetime ATA membership. I think you can look me up there too.

    2) Argue against a claim by attacking the speaker rather than his evidence. This should be self explanatory.

    3) Cherry pick your data. Just because you can provide a list of scientists who don't believe in climate warming doesn't mean your argument is valid. If this reasoning were valid, then I could easily prove Obama was the best President ever by providing a list of liberals who love the president.

    Call it liberal spin if you want. I call it clearer thinking than anything that's been provided here.

    Mark T.
     
  20. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    LOL, that's EXACTLY the criticisms that have been leveled at the global warming liberals and their paid for scientists.

    Nice liberal spin turning that 180 degrees.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.