dailymail: Global warming stopped 16 years ago,

[RedskinsFan44]

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

Saw that coming before I hit submit. No reference to the idea that we should all stop breathing?

[twa]

Saw that coming before I hit submit. No reference to the idea that we should all stop breathing?

I believe in selective enforcement in that and homegrown methane venting

[Jumbo]

I believe in selective enforcement in that and homegrown methane venting

I use that system in venting my personal research center, where most of my opinions are formed.

[alexey]

careful or you get labeled a denier

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

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/01/31/the-coming-of-the-new-ice-age-end-of-the-global-warming-era/?singlepage=true

The Ice Age thing is covered in the highly informative video about bull****:

To summarize it for you, in case you decided not to watch:

• The claim about incoming Ice Age is from the Time magazine printed in 1977. twa please do not get your scientific information from a 40+ year old Time magazine (start of the video).
  
• There was a study about scientific positions on climate change between 1965 and 1979. They found 7 papers predicting global cooling (not ice age) and 44 articles predicting global warming even though the climate was cooling at the time. (around min 3 of the video).
  
• As a side note, the climate science was indeed in a different state in 1977. There was much more uncertainty, and scientists were openly acknowledging that. Our understanding of climate made great progress in these 40+ years.
  

[Thiebear]

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.

I started with charts from the beginning of time

And worked towards present day trying to

Identify patterns in the data scientists created.

It's getting warmer in each of the last 7 warming periods

Each period is evenly spaced

Each period looks the same

Other than that I have no idea

I pointed out the arctic is thawing

I pointed out the antarctic is growing

I show the east Anglia prof agrees

About the plateau but disagrees on it mattering

Which part do you disagree with and then

We can discuss... Or are you already

Smarter than a 5th grader?

[alexey]

...

Which part do you disagree with and then

We can discuss... Or are you already

Smarter than a 5th grader?

You take some sciency things here and there and use them to kinda make sense of it in a way that makes sense to you. I do not know whether I am smarter than a 5th grader but I do know that the only possible outcome of your approach is a ton of bull****.

I am not qualified to draw conclusions on these issues and neither are you.

As I wrote earlier, people without proper education, like you and me, have two options - discuss what educated people are saying, or put on tin foil hats and go scream on the street about conspiracies.

[twa]

The Ice Age thing is covered in the highly informative video about bull****:

But I've got a Daily Mail article,with no need to rely on 40 yr old magazine pieces or the books

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2004535/The-new-Ice-Age-Climate-change-slow-sun-simmers-down.html

Burn some Styrofoam before it's too late

[alexey]

But I've got a Daily Mail article,with no need to rely on 40 yr old magazine pieces or the books

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2004535/The-new-Ice-Age-Climate-change-slow-sun-simmers-down.html

Burn some Styrofoam before it's too late

heh its a good one!

Title of the article:

The new Ice Age: Climate change could slow as sun simmers down

Sunspots are expected to disappear for years, maybe decades, after 2020

A sharp decrease in global warming might result

Body of the article:

Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at the University of Reading, said: ‘Our research shows there is an eight per cent chance that we will return to Maunder Minimum conditions over the next 40 years.

‘But, given the observed and predicted rise in greenhouse gases, we find it would do no more than slow global warming a little.’

[twa]

Ah, but he fails to address the poles shifting......as well as the models being off as demonstrated in the OP

Mother Nature is gonna get you one way or another (don't make me bring in the Russian scientists:))

[alexey]

Ah, but he fails to address the poles shifting......as well as the models being off as demonstrated in the OP

Mother Nature is gonna get you one way or another (don't make me bring in the Russian scientists:))

Here I am, complaining against bull**** armchair science by unqualified people, and your response is to offer more of that?

Keep your "look at this" and "look at that" bull**** that can be debunked with a 3 minute google search to yourself please.

I am not going to let you hide information behind noise that gets generated specifically for the purpose of hiding information.

[twa]

Fine... address the official numbers in the op,or why you doubt them

if we are not qualified for that,then armchair science is pretty much in play

[No Excuses]

Hack journalism at its finest.

Perhaps it would help some of you to actually understand the context of the findings, from the people who reported them.

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

[elkabong82]

Regardless of the trend up or down of global warming, we should still be making the same efforts to lower our carbon footprint, reduce pollution and emissions, and go green with renewable resources and energy wherever possible. Even if you don't think global warming exists or has much of an impact, you can't actually ignore the harmful effects that our ways have on the planet and the need for the above to be implemented anyway.

[alexey]

Fine... address the official numbers in the op,or why you doubt them

if we are not qualified for that,then armchair science is pretty much in play

I happen to be aware that the current consensus on anthropogenic climate change is based on a large body of scientific studies that were performed over decades. Various predictions were made, numerous factors modeled, models developed and improved, and so on.

Having this information allows me to narrow down the things I can reasonably doubt. I'm not just going to look at some numbers and say:

GEEE!!! Those numbers really lead me me believe blah blah blah!!! Looks like those 34 national science academies that made official statements confirming anthropogenic climate change got it wrong that those 0 scientific bodies of national or international standing got it right! Muahaha I am so clever!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_organizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations

---------- Post added October-15th-2012 at 05:57 PM ----------

Regardless of the trend up or down of global warming, we should still be making the same efforts to lower our carbon footprint, reduce pollution and emissions, and go green with renewable resources and energy wherever possible. Even if you don't think global warming exists or has much of an impact, you can't actually ignore the harmful effects that our ways have on the planet and the need for the above to be implemented anyway.

This is not good enough.

[elkabong82]

Alexey, perhaps you misunderstood me. I am saying that the efforts to reduce global warming should be made regardless of its existence because the effects we have had on global warming are still harmful to the planet, and no rational person can deny that. Emitting toxins, greenhouse gases, having such a large carbon footprint, being so wasteful with materials, are all bad for the planet whether or not one believes in global warming.

Basically, my argument is that even deniers of global warming can't rationally deny the harmful impact of the causes attributed to global warming on the planet, whether they manifest into global warming or other things. I was just listing some things to be implemented that currently are, not a total plan.

[twa]

Having this information allows me to narrow down the things I can reasonably doubt. I'm not just going to look at some numbers and say:

GEEE!!! Those numbers really lead me me believe blah blah blah!!! Looks like those 34 national science academies that made official statements confirming anthropogenic climate change got it wrong that those 0 scientific bodies of national or international standing got it right!

certainly nothing wrong with going with the consensus till the evidence becomes clearer

16 yrs is almost a trend though....I'll wait

[No Excuses]

16 yrs is almost a trend though....I'll wait

Why are you picking and choosing the findings of the work done by Met?

You are going to believe one set of information, but when the people who worked on it give you additional information, you ignore it?

[Thiebear]

Alexey

Your not qualified to pick and choose articles you want

They add up to crap right

So what of we see historical charts

So what if we're in a period called the chaotic times for climate

Right

Of course were in global warming we have been

For quite a while and right on time based on the previuos period.

You still didn't answer a single question

Please do or pick your own topic to author

[alexey]

Alexey, perhaps you misunderstood me. I am saying that the efforts to reduce global warming should be made regardless of its existence because the effects we have had on global warming are still harmful to the planet, and no rational person can deny that. Emitting toxins, greenhouse gases, having such a large carbon footprint, being so wasteful with materials, are all bad for the planet whether or not one believes in global warming.

Basically, my argument is that even deniers of global warming can't rationally deny the harmful impact of the causes attributed to global warming on the planet, whether they manifest into global warming or other things. I was just listing some things to be implemented that currently are, not a total plan.

Got it... I definitely agree. The thing is, reducing emissions is expensive, at least initially. I do not see how we can get enough motivation for it unless we stop denying the problem of anthropogenic climate change.

[twa]

Why are you picking and choosing the findings of the work done by Met?

You are going to believe one set of information, but when the people who worked on it give you additional information, you ignore it?

I'm ignoring nothing(nor blindly accepting), simply seeing a trend that some scientists see as well

one that at a minimum indicates we likely need to adjust the climate models

I wouldn't want to claim I know more than them

[HooHog]

September was the 331st consecutive month of above-average temperatures. This isn't a conservative vs liberal issue. This is about the ability of this planet to sustain the human race

[No Excuses]

one that at a minimum indicates we likely need to adjust the climate models

Here are two excerpts from their response:

The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely.

What changes to climate models should be made if the findings are not unprecedented?

Anyways, they themselves highlight the problem with using short-term start and end points:

The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we’ve stressed before, 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. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual.

[twa]

as long as you apply the same scrutiny to warming trend lengths it is certainly acceptable to me

it is some of those smart people (with letters after their name) that suggest the models adjustment

but they are open to new information or different conclusions most likely (probably just kooks)

[No Excuses]

as long as you apply the same scrutiny to warming trend lengths it is certainly acceptable to me

it is some of those smart people (with letters after their name) that suggest the models adjustment

but they are open to new information or different conclusions most likely (probably just kooks)

Saying scientists propose model adjustments (which they do) and smuggling your own idea of an "adjustment" into it is quite clever.

Still waiting on hearing what needs to be adjusted based on this data, as you suggested earlier.

[twa]

Saying scientists propose model adjustments (which they do) and smuggling your own idea of an "adjustment" into it is quite clever.

Still waiting on hearing what needs to be adjusted based on this data, as you suggested earlier.

it was in the link wasn't it?

'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.’

....

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.’

You don't trust me to read a temperature graph and want suggestions from me on how to adjust models???...you pulling my leg?