huskerXman Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 http://www.dailymail...t-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 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. Link to comment
The Dude Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 British Met Office refutes "misleading" claim "global warming stopped 16 years ago" http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/archive/2012/10/british_met_office_refutes_mis.shtml 1 Link to comment
zoogs Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 "I don't trust those damn scientists. ...Here's some 'science' to support my claims. You should believe me because it's scientific. And has charts, and stuff." Link to comment
HSKR Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 British Met Office refutes "misleading" claim "global warming stopped 16 years ago" http://minnesota.pub...futes_mis.shtml "It's very dangerous, misleading, and scientifically dishonest to pick any one 16 year period and make inferences about where long term climate trends are headed." How ironic is this statement? Saying that cherry picking a 16 year period is too short, yet at the same time we have people blaming this years drought on global warming or the 2005 hurricane season on global warming or some big tornado outbreak. I think this is where the climate scientists get themselves in trouble. They would serve their cause better renouncing the Al Gore's of the world who jump on every weather disaster and tries to say it's global warming. Instead stick to the facts that are known and get those facts to the public. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 "I don't trust those damn scientists. ...Here's some 'science' to support my claims. You should believe me because it's scientific. And has charts, and stuff." Link to comment
ZRod Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 HSKR I'm not sure where you heard that but I think the national climate center has said the current drought is not related to goal warming, but La Nina. Or that it was indeterminate whether or not global warming had any effect on the drought. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 16, 2012 Author Share Posted October 16, 2012 Well, then. yeah, well then.. Even Science can't agree with science. because we know if this was found to be a fraud a lot of scientists would no longer have their cash cow. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 16, 2012 Author Share Posted October 16, 2012 http://en.wikipedia...._global_warming Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling. Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [9] Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[10][11][12] Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[13] Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[14] Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[15] Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [16] Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[17] Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[18][19] Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[20] Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[21] David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[22] Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[23] William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[24] William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[25] William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[26] David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[27] Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[28] Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[29][30] Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[31] Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[32][33] Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[34] Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[35][36][37] Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[38] Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[39] Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[40] Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[41] Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[42] Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[43] Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[44] John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[45][46] Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[47] David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[48] Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[49] Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [50] Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[51] Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[52] Well, then. Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Does anyone ever wonder why every article, news report or magazine spread about Global Warming contain dire warnings about humanity's future? Why is it that a warming climate is always bad for humans? Link to comment
zoogs Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Because alarmist media articles don't care about science. They just like jumping up and down and screaming, 'OMG!' Remember that this is an academic issue, not a political one. Ask yourself, "Do I have a dog in this fight? Do I want to believe a certain angle as a part of my 'views'?" If so, you're doing it wrong. I wonder if this is not a uniquely American trend. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Does anyone ever wonder why every article, news report or magazine spread about Global Warming contain dire warnings about humanity's future? Why is it that a warming climate is always bad for humans? LOL....very good question. Link to comment
Nebula Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 We have a culturally ingrained obsession with apocalyptic prophecy. It's not unique to us, but not every society shares it. It's why so many people here started to stockpile goods and arms for the millennium. (Which, of course, should technically have been 2001 anyway because there was no year zero.) I watched some discussion panel that featured some folks from the world of academia who specialized in South American studies. They said the Mayans were very sophisticated in terms of studying astronomy, and thus were aware of the need for a leap year. They used leap months and leap, or shortened, weeks instead. It was more flexible (which isn't a synonym for better, it was just different) than what we do. Point being, they had a solid foundation for charting time, and a cyclical notion of it which differs from how we see it, which I would say is more of a linear view. These cycles contained a number of centuries that I can't recall exactly, 5,000 years or so, give or take 500 years. When a cycle ended...a new one started. That's it. So 2012 would have meant nothing to the Mayans, according to what I watched. No one can state with 100% certainty that global warming is happening, and that it is a direct result of human activity. However, the exact opposite is true as well. To vehemently argue either side with absolution is folly. Imho, it seems prudent to err on the side of caution. I DO know there is an ever increasing mass of plastic that collects where currents meet in the ocean. That's probably not great. BP dumping an obscene amount of oil into the seabed can't be ideal. Fukishima was worse than Chernobyl, which was one of the true nightmare events when I was a kid. Radiation pouring into the sea? Well, radiation occurs naturally from the sun...that's true. It's still not good for organic matter. So those things concern me, just in terms of altering the earth-wide food chain. Poisoning aquatic environments is possible. If, somehow, we kill off plankton like we did the passenger pigeon, that will affect us. And not in a good way. So I'd propose that being eco-aware is good policy, not because of any charts or the words of any politician or even a scientist, for that matter. (Even though that is what they, meaning scientists, do for a living.) It's where we live. Where our kids will live. Anyone would strip asbestos and lead paint from their home without need of prompting. Why not apply that to the planet we live on? Link to comment
huskerXman Posted October 16, 2012 Author Share Posted October 16, 2012 Because alarmist media articles don't care about science. They just like jumping up and down and screaming, 'OMG!' Remember that this is an academic issue, not a political one. Ask yourself, "Do I have a dog in this fight? Do I want to believe a certain angle as a part of my 'views'?" If so, you're doing it wrong. I wonder if this is not a uniquely American trend. Since when has this ever been just an academic issue? It has never been an academic issue, it has always been political. Link to comment
Recommended Posts