Yikes Al Gore Is Wrong - The Earth Is Not Warming MET and East Anglia

Welcome Lower Merion residents!

We're glad you stopped by. Go ahead and register for a free account to get the benefits of being a member, including:
  • Access to all of our posts and comments
  • Your own profile including an avatar, buddy lists, and other social networking features
  • The ability to send private messages to other users on this site
  • The ability to chat and interact with other citizens and voters in and around Lower Merion.
Creating an account is easy. Register now!

(Don't live in Lower Merion? That's okay. We won't hold it aginst you.)
Tags:
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

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 199

READ MORE http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

1.916665
Average: 1.9 (12 votes)
Your rating: None

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

You don't have to believe me or anyone else. But anyone who questions that global climate change is real ought to also question why the US military is spending so much money and attention on preparing for a hotter world and rising oceans. Surely the US military is not just acting out of political correctness?

If you truly insist that climate change is not real then logically you should be outraged by this senseless waste of tax dollars by the military.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/08/us-military-declares-war-on-cl.html

https://www.greenbang.com/us-military-climate-change-is-a-key-security-issue_13506.html

 

4.444445
Average: 4.4 (9 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

                                                        The Science Is Not Settled- Global Warming

                                                        

                 16 Scientists sign WSJ editorial 27 Jan 2012 No Need to Panic about Global Warming

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

                   GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE NOT SETTLED SCIENCE CO2 may be beneficial WSJ 1/27/2012 VIDEO 6:40 min

1.88889
Average: 1.9 (9 votes)
Your rating: None
Hugh Gordon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 30 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 2009-10-24 :58
Posts:

And 225 members of the National Academy of Sciences wrote a contrary letter to the Murdoch fishwrap, which refused to publish it.

2011 was warmer than every single year in the 20th century except for 1998. 

 

4.833335
Average: 4.8 (6 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

As I read the WSJ article, it made what seems to be an obvious point: scientists don't agree and the science is settled. No need to start calling names just because someone disagrees with you.

Do you have a link?

3
Average: 3 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
Jethro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 34 weeks ago
Joined: 2011-01-28 :14
Posts:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

...we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the
field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change...

 

But hey, Why should you question 16 random scientists in a WSJ editorial!

And never mind that Giaever is not a climate scientist, has never published or even contributed to *any* climate study, and is a member of the Cato Institute and Heartland Institute... So yea, no conflict there...

4
Average: 4 (6 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

There is no doubt the climate is warming.

The dispute is whether it is caused by humans, and that’s why I posted below I have no opinion one way or the other because scientists are in disagreement as to the cause of global warming.

The earth has gone through warming and cooling eras throughout the millennia when humans were not around, so they did not cause the ice age and what not. On the other hand human involvement could be playing a role this time around. I personally don’t know and there is disputed scientific evidence on the cause.

Yes, greenhouse gases are increasing on the earth’s atmosphere.

The primary greenhouse gases on the earth are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. In the Solar System, the atmospheres of Venus, Mars, and Titan also contain gases that cause greenhouse effects.

I wonder if those other planets go through changes in the amount of greenhouse gases without human involvement? Fact is, we don’t know.

Yes, fossil fuels have played an increased role in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but that is also only a portion of what makes up greenhouse gases.

To me, the jury is still out. We could just be going through a natural warming period at the same time fossil fuels impact some of the greenhouse effect.

What I find interesting is how this is split down party lines as one of those political wedge issues where the political parties seek to differentiate themselves because they really are not any different on the big issues that cost us a trillion dollars a year in new national debt.

This is a classic example, IMHO, of how the political parties seek to divide, conquer and control.

Not being a supporter of either party, I just look at this logically and say it is disputed as to the cause, so I won’t take a position until there is more concrete evidence.

Finally, I for one am happy with my lower heating bills this winter regardless of the cause of this mild winter Smiling

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

3.57143
Average: 3.6 (7 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

Reasonable thoughts, but this topic was started with Bob's assertion (and his supporting "evidence") that the climate is not warming at all. Which I personally do not find reasonable, but I also recognize that it's a waste of breath to convince such people, especially people with such an invested interest in the status quo .

Venus and Mars may well heat way up and cool way down, and all kinds of ungodly gasses may shoot up and down on those planets. Unfortunately here on earth we have the disadvantage of having to consider the delicate balance of life.

4.125
Average: 4.1 (8 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

Agreed on considering the balance of life, but it also may be nothing we can do about.

We could cut all fossil fuels and global warming may still continue if this is a natural phase in climate change we are going through.

If fossil fuels are the sole cause (and I see no concrete evidence to that), then something should certainly be done.

In general, I'm all for getting away for foreign oil dependence and using greener technologies. There is, however, disagreement on how to implement that, and those disagreements can be laid with the political parties disagreeing in my view, as opposed to free people of unique backgrounds and different stripes deciding to work together for a common cause. Who knows. People might decide on their own to work for a greener and cleaner America in an extraordinary effort if the political parties were not pulling them in opposite directions and creating division.

I already do it with non-profit hunting groups that have enhanced the number of endangered species by improving their habitat and and having bag limits on hunting.

Wild turkeys were just about extinct in this country 20 years ago, and now their population has exploded and their natural habitat has been preserved by hunters via the National Wild Turkey Federation.

Now doubt the NWTF has Republican and Democratic members/volunteers, but party affiliation is not discussed. The preservation goal is what it is all about.

Perhaps the global warming issue would be better handled if politicians did not make it such a divisive issue where they take advantage of emotions in a divisive manner in order to garner votes?

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

3.833335
Average: 3.8 (6 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

As CO2 omissions increase, the standard of living around the world increased. Who would want to lower standard of living except those elitists  whose wealth and privilege is protected by political power.

1.166665
Average: 1.2 (6 votes)
Your rating: None
Wynnewoodie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 50 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 2009-05-11 :03
Posts:

Increased CO2 emissions have coincided with increases in standard of living. This does not mean that increases in CO2 emissions have caused increases in standard of living (increased CO2 emissions may have even slowed the rate of increase in standard of living).

You do understand the difference between coincidence and causality, don't you?

4
Average: 4 (4 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

Please do not be a smart aleck.

The arguement for anthropogenic global warming is based on correlation, not coincidence, so that a decline in temperatures, as measured by 30,000 measuring stations, leads to the conclusion that global warming is not caused by carbon emissions. Right?

 A unique assertion, the standard of living has declined in the last 100 years, is it not? 

2.333335
Average: 2.3 (3 votes)
Your rating: None
LMT Observer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 weeks 7 hours ago
Joined: 2009-04-25 :31
Posts:

bobguzzardi, 

You might consider the possibility that Wynnewoodie's question to you,  Do you understand the distinction between coincidence and causality?, was well justified in light of many of your comments at SAC. 

You do at times insert statements in comments to try to support your positions, that imply causal relationships when no evidence exists for a cause-effect relationship between phenomena you would like others to logically link in their minds too.     

For example, within this series of posts on global warming you made a two statement comment that prompted Wynnewoodie to ask whether you understand the difference between coincidence and causality. 

Wed, 2012-02-01 12:41 #9 bobguzzardi 

As CO2 omissions [sic] increase, the standard of living around the world increased. Who would want to lower standard of living except those elitists whose wealth and privilege is protected by political power.

Taken together, the statements invite inferential causal attributions in readers' minds like this:   

  • C02 emissions are causally-linked to  
  • standard of living increases for large social groups on Earth.  
  • Therefore, as your statements invite readers to infer:  IF actions are taken to reduce C02 emissions by "elitists" (?) THEN the standard of living of masses of human beings necessarily will decline.     (That's a causal,  If-Then, kind of thought.)

Observed association between phenomena, also known by the common statistical term, 'correlation,' cannot in itself reveal causation.   That's a fundamental tenet of scientific analysis, inductive and deductive reasoning, and scientifically compelling "proof" of causation.  

Furthermore, a time-related, observable association between phenomena might mean only that a coincidence, i.e., no causal relationship of any type, direct or indirect, exists between them, as Wynnewoodie noted.      

Wynnewoodie's question likely makes sense to many who read your SAC posts and to those who not only are willing to devote considerable time to substantive debate with you but also do so accepting the terms of engagement that you set.   

Despite your stated commitment to cogent, scientifically defensible thinking, and evidence-based discourse and the fact that you repeatedly hold those who challenge your arguments to that standard (and even insult us if we don't) your own arguments often don't meet it. 

5
Average: 5 (2 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

Obviously. This has been my point all along about CO2 and Global Warming.

1
Average: 1 (1 vote)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

Your link goes to a Dec 2009 article reprinted in April 2010. Since then the data has been updated.

"Group Think" could not be an explanation, could it? so only someone outside the narrow specialty could, without risk to his career, take a dissenting view.

The Princeton scientist in WSJ video is a Climate Scientist.

Science is, inherently, skeptical yet these climate "scientists" have no doubts.

The sources  I linked to relied on  new data from East Anglia which is where the IPCC is located and we could think these are climate scientists who are looking at data and not taking an ideological position. What makes you think the dissenters are not climate scientists or are not qualified to comment?

 

1.666665
Average: 1.7 (6 votes)
Your rating: None
LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

"Group Think" is an excellent explanation for climate change deniers so desperate to believe a status quo fiction that they will latch onto any story no matter how small - true or false, reputable or not - to support their essentially flat-earth view.

4.125
Average: 4.1 (8 votes)
Your rating: None
Jethro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 34 weeks ago
Joined: 2011-01-28 :14
Posts:

The scientist in the video, William Happer is a physicist, and not a climate scientist. And whaddya know, also involved with the Exxon / Koch brothers funded Cato Institute. Group think, indeed. I wonder if the 14 other scientists have similar connections...

Of course, it doesn’t matter what information is presented to you. You will only believe information inside your 'lil tea party echo chamber.

4.333335
Average: 4.3 (9 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

  Do you deny this is the data?  If CO2 were the cause, then temperatures would have risen as more and more C02 is released in the air. In any evnt, temperaturss have not risen in a straight line as expected. This is the data. It came from East Anglia. Not exactly global warmer deniers, are they? Ad hominen attacks evidence desperation. Look at the data.

2
Average: 2 (4 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

There does not seem to be challenge to the newest evidence and, clearly, 2011 was NOT the warmest year in 20th century.

2
Average: 2 (2 votes)
Your rating: None
Hugh Gordon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 30 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 2009-10-24 :58
Posts:

1998 was the warmest year in the 20th century.    To repeat, 2011 was warmer than every year in the 20th century except for 1998. 

4.666665
Average: 4.7 (3 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

The trend is toward cooling in last 15 years. This, directly, contradicts all predictions. That is the key point.

2
Average: 2 (4 votes)
Your rating: None
Wynnewoodie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 50 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 2009-05-11 :03
Posts:

Actually Bob, the trend is still warming, albeit at a slower rate than the preceding 150 years.

Linear regression of average world temperatures: 1997 - 2011

The red line is a linear regression of the data you presented. Note that the line is rising -- it starts below 14.4°C and finishes above 14.4°C -- that means the trend is toward warming, not cooling.

4.5
Average: 4.5 (4 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

How do you explain the break in the trend for the past 15 years based on the readings from 30,000 measuring stations.

      Wynnewoodie's linear regression shows a trend upward but does not explain the 15 year decline. A decline in temperature is not what was expected if anthopogenic CO2 were the cause of global warming.

If the the line declines, there are consequences to the theory.

The temperatures may go up again or not; the future is infuriatingly unpredictable. Note this report was based on 30,000 measuring stations. The report is not political and is scientific. Other measurements are done by satellite.

The decline in the past 15 years would indicate that CO2 and carbon emissions are not the cause of global warming trend. The speculation is that it is Sun Cycles that may explain the trend and the break in the trend. NASA and University of Arizona have measured the solar cycles and seem, also, to concur that it may be the solar cycles. It can’t be CO2 because CO2 has been increasing which would mean temperatures would be rising steadily, and there would be no decline but a slow steady increase.

The temperatures go up and they go down and, like the stock market, one can go broke attempting to predict what will happen with the weather or the stock market. I think you have misapprehended the point of MET and East Anglia Climate Research Unit. It seems apparent that you have not read this article dated 29 January 2012 which contains the latest research findings.

“Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years “ 29 January 2012 Daily Mail

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

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak. We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

****** Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

2.333335
Average: 2.3 (3 votes)
Your rating: None
LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

If the the line declines, there are consequences to the theory.

Why are there consequences to the theory if the line declines, but there are no consequences to your observations now that we see the line inclines?

4.333335
Average: 4.3 (3 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

As noted in a graph I posted on this thread, their have been significant drops in climate temperatures for periods of many years over the last century, but the overall trend is continually up for climate temperatures and global warming (whatever the cause).

The fact that the past decade has been flat and perhaps down a little says nothing. There have been years with significant cooling in the past century, but the temp always ends up going up overall in the long run.

Therefore, you can't argue that one snapshot of a relatively flat period of global temperatures means anything given significant drops in temperatures for short periods over the past century with an overall up tend.

Again, the jury is still out.

This could be an anomaly like other short-period cooling tends over the past century (though not much of an anomaly as it is more flat than the down trends we have seen).

As I posted, it will be interesting to see where this goes the next ten years, but for now it means nothing as we don't know it temps will remain flat, go down, or continue their uptrend.

The overall trend has been up and we are still at all time temperature highs for the past century, so I can't see how it can be argued global warming is over.

More time is needed to see what transpires over the next few years, but if you use the technical analysis traders on the stock market do, you would look at this as a correction with profit taking on the uptrend, but the uptrend will continue.

Me, I don't have an answer as to what will happen. Time will tell. The atmosphere may have adjusted to greenhouse effects and has peaked, or the uptrend could return. There could also be a variety of factors going on (slimmer chance) that will cause cooling down the road.

Nobody knows for sure. What we do know is what historically has happened, and the trend is up with dips along the way.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

4.333335
Average: 4.3 (3 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

No matter how the evil scientists spin the data, 2011 will never be a year of the 20th century.

4.333335
Average: 4.3 (3 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

Hugh did not say that 2011 was in the 20th century.

2.666665
Average: 2.7 (3 votes)
Your rating: None
LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

You said that 2011 was not the warmest year of the 20th century. So you were technically correct about that.

2011 was also not the warmest year of the 19th or 18th centuries.

4.5
Average: 4.5 (4 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

Once again, you have exposed  on my grammatical mistake.

1.666665
Average: 1.7 (6 votes)
Your rating: None
LMT Observer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 weeks 7 hours ago
Joined: 2009-04-25 :31
Posts:

LexoTime5 said:

Look at Politeia's chart, which includes 1998-2012, and shows year to year fluctuations over short scale 20-year periods but the long term trend is up. Your own chart shows all the data points between 14.3 and 14.4, which are the hottest years bar none. That is not cooling.

To BobG:  

As you certainly can comprehend, the misleading statements in your comments and supporting "evidence" that have been brought to your attention in replies to your opening assertion, "Yikes Al Gore Is Wrong - The Earth Is Not Warming . . .," are not minor, dismissible as grammar nitpicking.  

3
Average: 3 (3 votes)
Your rating: None
LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

It's not a mistake. You're absolutely 100% correct that 2011 was not the warmest year of the 20th century. Nothing gets by you, champ.

4.142855
Average: 4.1 (7 votes)
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

Obama apparently had a phone call with Dubya regarding global warming the other day and they are really going to buckle down now and fight to eradicate this imminent, evil threat to the planet, and they agreed to take nothing off the table and are prepared for a first-strike, preemptive War on Global Warming without even asking Congress to declare war.

As a matter of fact, they both agreed to send 120,000 troops to the sun once the massive Starship Gingrich is finished being built, and have already planned for a "surge" in troops on key spots on the sun if that does not do the trick.

Let's hear it for Operation Sun Spot! If you don't support it - you are not a patriotic American.

Half-joking aside, I truly do not have an opinion one way or the other on this one as there is too much contradictory evidence from both camps.

The fact that the U.S. military is preparing for the effects of global warming tells me nothing as the Military Industrial Complex will use any excuse (real, imagined or fearmongered) to fill its coffers.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

3.77778
Average: 3.8 (9 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

Hey Bob, I think you need to "zoom out" a bit there:

So glad to hear you're a follower of the 'data,' and I await your cogent and relevant reply.

4.375
Average: 4.4 (8 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

This graph ends in 1998 when the cooling starts.

2
Average: 2 (4 votes)
Your rating: None
LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

Look at Politeia's chart, which includes 1998-2012, and shows year to year fluctuations over short scale 20-year periods but the long term trend is up.

Your own chart shows all the data points between 14.3 and 14.4, which are the hottest years bar none. That is not cooling.

Now I don't have another 100 years to convince you, and you won't be convinced, so please go about your business.

3.8
Average: 3.8 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

East Anglia Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, U.K. published the UN sponsored IPCC report claiming global warming. East Anglia Climate Research has, now, in the spirit of scientific inquiry, and not politics, produced additional information and analysis.  East Anglia CRU is questioning its IPCC conclusions.

   The Earth's temperature hasn't increased significantly in about 15 years(Orange County Register - 1 February 2012) , which wouldn't be big news except global warming extremists had predicted temperatures would soar during that time because of manmade greenhouse-gas emissions.

*****

Great Britain's heretofore hotbed of global warming alarmism, East Anglia's Climate Research Center, now says there been no meaningful warming since 1997. Indeed, the Earth may even be cooling, according to Britain's Meteorological Office. The Met, as it's called, said we are entering a period of slower solar activity, perhaps as severe as the solar slump from 1645-1715, the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, when Britain's river Thames and Holland's canals froze over.

2
Average: 2 (2 votes)
Your rating: None
LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

Here's some more "the science isn't settled" fodder for you.

4
Average: 4 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
Wynnewoodie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 50 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 2009-05-11 :03
Posts:

Between 1997 - 2011?

Still warming.

If you look back at 1938 - 1975, the trend there actually was cooling. However, the last 50 years have been scary.

Considering that oceans cover 70% of the surface of the earth, ocean cycles play a huge role in temperature & climate. Some have suggested that temperatures over the last 50 years have been exacerbated by a warm ocean cycle. The question is whether (or to what degree) human activity has compounded natural temperature variation. Current models predict that accumulation of greenhouse gases drives temperature increases, but that the rate of increase is attenuated by ocean cycles (faster in warm cycles and slower in cold cycles). These models are consistent with the current data. That's why they're the prevailing models. As the cold ocean cycle continues, the climate science community may need to further refine their models to parse out the relative contributions of natural cycles and human activity to global temperature change, but 14 years of slow warming is nowhere near sufficient to debunk current climate models.

4.5
Average: 4.5 (4 votes)
Your rating: None
Wynnewoodie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 50 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 2009-05-11 :03
Posts:

What cooling? Still warming, albeit more slowly.

4
Average: 4 (2 votes)
Your rating: None
LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

Don't worry about the heat everyone! Bob G assures us that Global Cooling started in 1998.

That gust of cold 1998 air ought to be hitting us any day now, huh?  Maybe next year.

5
Average: 5 (2 votes)
Your rating: None
Hugh Gordon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 30 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 2009-10-24 :58
Posts:

On-Going Heat Wave in U.S. Rivals Events of Dust Bowl Era

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/heat-wave-rivals-events-of-dust-bowl-era/

During the past 30 days, a stunning 6,439 warm temperature records were set or tied in the Lower 48 states, including 240 all-time warm temperature records. For the year-to-date, warm temperature records have been outpacing cold temperature records by a lopsided 7-to-1 margin.

In a long-term trend that demonstrates the effects of a warming climate, daily record-high temperatures have recently been outpacing daily record lows by an average of 2-to-1, and this imbalance is expected to grow as the climate continues to warm. According to a 2009 study, if the climate were not warming, this ratio would be expected to be even. Other studies have shown that global warming increases the odds of extreme heat events and may make them warmer and longer lasting.

The individual records set during the ongoing heat wave tell the story of how unusual this event has been so far.

                                                   *                                      *                                    *

The latest heat wave comes after the U.S. experienced its warmest spring on record and warmest 12-month period, and follows an unprecedented heat wave during March, when thousands of heat records were also broken. The average springtime temperature in the lower 48 was so far above the 1901-2000 average — 5.2°F, to be exact — that the country set a record for the largest temperature departure for any season on record since 1895.

5
Average: 5 (1 vote)
Your rating: None
LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

I'm curious how far the climate change deniers will take their charade, especially as te climate continues to heat up. Will they stay in the hottest places and insist "It's not really 110 degrees outside! It's been getting colder and colder since 1998! For heaven's sake, burn more carbon!"

5
Average: 5 (2 votes)
Your rating: None
Hugh Gordon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 30 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 2009-10-24 :58
Posts:

George Will tells us that "it's summer," and it was hot in July when he was a kid.

0
No votes yet
Your rating: None
politeia's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 2008-07-30 :00
Posts:

Perhaps a more cogent graphic:



While the last decade has been relatively flat, it has been at high temperatures for the past century, so like I and most others have stated, the global climate has been warming.

At the same time, the past ten years have been flat. This could be an anomaly, but if global temperatures remain flat for another decade, it does put into question the man-made theory behind global warming (or perhaps that the climate has adjusted to made-made influences and will not warm further). Additionally, geological evidence shows carbon dioxide levels were higher for a period of time 20 million years ago than they are today, and humans were not around burning fossil fuels back then.

That’s why I say the jury is still out on the cause of global warming, but a cleaner, greener earth is certainly something worth having.

To say there has been no global warming going on (for whatever reason) is folly, but it will be interesting to see if the past decade has been an anomaly or not over the upcoming years.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

4.6
Average: 4.6 (5 votes)
Your rating: None

 

 

bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

The video points to Satellite measurements. What and how the measurements skew the result. As far as I know no one denies the trend is cooler which belies the paradigm that CO2 causes warming. There has been no reduction, as far as I know, in the CO2 levels but there has been cooling.

The key point is "Scientists Disagree", the science is not settled.

 

2.2
Average: 2.2 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
Wynnewoodie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 50 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 2009-05-11 :03
Posts:

I deny that the trend is cooler, as should anyone who can read a graph or do a linear regression

3.25
Average: 3.3 (4 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

Correct. The trend is global warming or not.  It may be the last 15 years is a trend or not. Scientists, and we, will have to wait and see.

The cooling over last 15 years leads to inference that global warming is not anthropogenic which was the point from the beginning. The 15 year cooling defies the correlation and causality between increased  CO2 and Global Warming, does it not?

There is a distinction between the issue of whether globe is warming, the jury is out, and whether global warming is anthropogenic.

1.8
Average: 1.8 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
LexoTime5's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 weeks ago
Joined: 2009-04-01 :31
Posts:

Who says the world is cooling? You yourself have posted several times a chart that shows the world has warmed since 1998. Please do try to focus. Arrow points up means higher.

3.8
Average: 3.8 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

The report from East Anglia made the simple statement that temperatures have been declining for the past 15 years. There does not seem to be an explanation for that phenomenon. That is the simple point.

2.5
Average: 2.5 (4 votes)
Your rating: None
Wynnewoodie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 50 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 2009-05-11 :03
Posts:

I can't find any statement to that effect in the report from East Anglia. Can you provide me a link to the report in which you think they state any such thing?

The simple fact is that temperatures have NOT been declining for the past 15 years. This point is easily demonstrated.

Since the folks at East Anglia can read graphs and perform linear regressions, I find it hard to imagine that they published a statement suggesting otherwise.

4.4
Average: 4.4 (5 votes)
Your rating: None
bobguzzardi's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2006-01-13 :07
Posts:

The Leviathan United Nations and Leftist Elites have politicized science to the goal of world government, impinging on US sovereignty, to force US taxpayers to fund "emerging nations", all of whom have policies anti-thetical to the unalienable  freedoms of the US Constitution. The UN has not conducted disinterested scientific inquiry to find the truth; it is science for political ends., a pretext for a power grab.

Greed for power is as corrosive as greed for money. The US Constitutions structure of Limited Government, decentralization of power in states and locally, and Checks and Balances on Power, the Separation of Powers and Federalism of the 10th Amendment, were designed by the Founders to prevent those intoxicated by power from possessing a monopoly of power, tyranny.  The United Nations is not accountable to the American Voter.

A world Leviathan is even more dangerous than a national Leviathan. There is no place to go.

The American Taxpayer finances $6 billion dollars a year, about 22% of the budget, and Japan is the second largest funder. What does the US taxpayer get for its money? The UN is controlled by tyrannies. Financing the enemy is not a good idea, fiscally or politically.

 

                                               

The United Nations is raising the alarm that unless the world’s governments take drastic action to impose strict development controls, humanity is in grave peril. So what else is new? (Washington Examiner Editorial 3 February)

On Jan. 30, the U.N. High-level Panel on Global Sustainability issued a report entitled “Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing.” The 99-page report, envisioned as a “blueprint for sustainable development and low-carbon prosperity,” contains 56 recommendations to “put sustainable development into practice and to mainstream it into economic policy as quickly as possible.”  READ MORE about the UN's scary report 

1.57143
Average: 1.6 (7 votes)
Your rating: None

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.