Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

dailymail: Global warming stopped 16 years ago,


Thiebear

Recommended Posts

Partial Headline as it was too long:

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 (765)

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.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29MEQXm9G

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Though i kinda like it where it is right now, I think if we could get this up another .5 so i don't have to move to North Carolina (they don't get to see the Redskins games)...

(So as not to repeat every other talking point)

You are correct: Pollution is a problem, we must clean up the planet for future generations.

Artic Ice is melting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/14/arctic-sea-ice-smallest-extent

And Antartica(larger than the Arctic) Is growing larger. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will look at that: First thing that popped out on the Nasa one: derived from the meteorological station network. (thought we started using Satellite data) and it was 30% lower than the station data.

have some reading to do, will be back.

If you read the article there are pro's and cons in there. Lets not read the title and then try and debunk without reading please.

example:

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’.

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.’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will look at that: First thing that popped out on the Nasa one: derived from the meteorological station network. (thought we started using Satellite data) and it was 30% lower than the station data.

have some reading to do, will be back.

If you read the article there are pro's and cons in there. Lets not read the title and then try and debunk without reading please.

example:

If you look at the chart of data I posted of global temps since 1880, which as your article states is the point from which we have accurate data, there are lots of flat spots and some downturns but the overall trend is up. Daily Mail article also has a pic of nuclear cooling towers emitting "pollution".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is the Met Office study that this article is supposedly based on?

I looked at the Met Office site and found this:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/policy-relevant/evidence

Long-term climate change

The period 2000-2009 was warmer than the 1990s that, in turn, were warmer than 1980s. In fact, the average temperature over the first decade of the 21st century was significantly warmer than any preceding decade in the instrumental record, stretching back 160 years.

Despite variability from year to year - which sees some years warmer and others cooler - we have identified a clear underlying trend of increasing global temperatures from the late 1970s of about 0.16 °C per decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2010 was hot also: 2011/2012 has taken that trend lower, why get a study that ends in 2009?

Look the Professor that agrees with you agrees with the plateau but says its too short to be of worry for the "man-made" global warming people.

Everyone knows there is global warming, were just trying to figure out what percentage man is responsible for so we can reduce that to a point it doesn't throw the world into chaos.

New Sattelite technology should help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2010 was hot also: 2011/2012 has taken that trend lower, why get a study that ends in 2009?

This article you posted makes a multi-page emotional appeal using all the traditional BS pseudo-arguments. The only nugget of possibly useful information is the Met Office study that this article refers to. Where is that study?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess that means its okay to keep dumping waste in out watersheds and creating giant oceanic islands out of trash then right???

Start at the first post and read your way down, though I could be and are quite often wrong.

Dumping Garbage into the ocean, watershed, moon has never been a policy want..

I'm the one guy picking up garbage at the playground.

---------- Post added October-15th-2012 at 09:42 AM ----------

This article you posted makes a multi-page emotional appeal using all the traditional BS pseudo-arguments. The only nugget of possibly useful information is the Met Office study that this article refers to. Where is that study?

not sure: you referring to this?: HadCRUT3

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daily Mail article also has a pic of nuclear cooling towers emitting "pollution".

Water vapor is a major factor in the greenhouse effect...or so they say

it is not a study Alexy....it is the temperatures recorded that show the cooling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asf: from what point in time do you want to measure?

Being climate change of a planet should it be reviewed

30,300,3000,30000,300000,3000000.30mil,300mil

Or all of them?

Thiebear,

Where do you place yourself on a scale from 0 to 10, 0 being climate change understanding a 5 year old child and 10 being climate change science understanding of fully educated climate scientist?

I am asking this because when I go to EPA or IPCC, for example, I see information produced by educated people who spend their lives trying to figure things out. When I get on ES, I see information produced by uneducated people who look at charts that were produced by a barely respectable news outlet.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/overview.html

Your options on this are very limited. You can either acknowledge that you do not have the education necessary to properly disagree with educated scientists, or you can put on a tin foil hat, go to the corner of a street, and scream about global scientific conspiracies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alexy, educated scientists disagree,and the numbers used are from scientists

I wouldn't mind them sorting it out out of the press and lobbyist area though

This thead is not about legitimate disagreements between climate scientists.

Climate science has advanced a lot over the past few decades. It has advanced to the point where sources like the one in OP cannot even find an actual study to use for their emotional appeals. They have to use "numbers from scientists" to make charts that lead non-scientists to come up with conclusions that differ from conclusions of scientists.

I think that anybody who is intersted in honest pursuit of truth has a moral obligation to take a strong position against such dishonest attempts to discredit and misrepresent available information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just on this stuff, people often use the "experts disagree" arguments to defend their "right to opine" in contradiction to whatever experts are against their POV, however informed or uniformed their POV might be (usually quite uninformed, relatively, unless it's a matter actually within their profession or relevant and meaningful personal experience).

But the matter of ego (particularly male ego), or self-identity needs, being what it is, such is not going to change. Nothing useless about pointing it out when you see it, however. Competent scientists in their respective fields having specific disagreements, or professional football coaches, or jet pilots, or architects for that matter, is one thing (logically enough), and someone from the Universal Know So Much About Many Things--Internet Contingent (self-inflating peanut gallery) wedging themselves into such is often quite different---and sometimes entertaining, admittedly.

But what's the alternative? You can't restrict (nor would it be a good thing IMO) that kind of mix in discourse and just have "class level" discussion populations.

It's sort of a "cousin" to the dynamic I call "being right about something but for the wrong reasons." My favorite example is a very racist uncle I had telling me I shouldn't hire this young black man at one of my businesses long ago (first career---lots of tempting merchandise and cash around daily) would steal form me (because he was black and that's what they do) and the guy did steal from me. My uncle had a field day about how right he was, and how wrong the "so called real smart open-minded guy" was, and how all the arguments I had given him in our discussion were obviously bull****.

My suggestion is simply: more humility. Not necessarily in surface demeanor or putting on airs. But internally; with integrity. Spend more time considering how much you don't know, and how much somebody else might, instead of always defaulting to how right you usually are on most everything (an attitude which always gets denied by those who wield it regularly, but observable behaviors (and sometimes an actual record :evilg:) tell a different story).

So, you know, if you're a landscaper and also a darn smart human by golly, still give yourself a break by not figuring you're eminently qualified to go toe to toe with every geologist, biologist, engineer, psychologist, economist, professor, priest, lawyer, physicist, etc etc that comes down the road and always figure you just must be right when they happen to think something different than you in their area of expertise. Maybe allow for a little enlightenment and even <gasp> change in your views here and there after the age of 25. :pfft:

But I digress. :D:ols::ols::ols::ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we aren't qualified to discuss science this seems relevant :evilg:

When has a lack of qualifications ever stopped YOU? :pfft:

And everyone's qualified to discuss. Not everyone has solid reading comprehension, though. :evilg:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...