Global Warming stopped in 1996

[miami_thomas]

The Greenland Ice Sheet in a Changing Climate - YouTube

Climate change does not automatically equal manmade.

“There is no proof that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gasses by human activity. The current warming is likely part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that’s been traced back almost a million years. It accounts for the Medieval Warm Period around 1100 A.D., and the Little Ice Age, from about 1400-1850 A.D.”

Planet News Article, Jackson Hole Wy | Man-made global warming 'bites the dust' | 1/2/2008

 

[FJO]

I am not going to bother to provide all the links I found when I googled "Global warming on Mars", because there are far too many.

None of the links - SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!!! - blamed human activity, as the anti-people Gaia-loving freaks do it here on Earth.

 

[blastoff]

Honestly, this tread needs to come down, it's scrary that there are people out there who actually think our planet is not going through changes and that humens have not played a part.

So then what accounts for the drastic changes that occurred numerous times before man was supposedly causing all the problems? The place had to get pretty darn cold to usher in another ice age, but then, of course, it had to warm for it to cease. Cool again, warm again, cool again...

 

[miami_thomas]

First, the argument about global warming had not been up for debate. Most scientists agreed that global warming was occurring but not that it was manmade. Turns out that global warming stopped in 1996. The fact is renewable energy is the driving force behind trying to prove a coming disaster because many people in the world of academia have been working on solutions for the coming energy crisis for some time. As early as even 1911 there was a belief that solar energy would be the way of the future as a renewable source. It was believed that coal would eventually run out and the other form would be needed. But other forms of energy have risen like Oil and natural gas. So all those that bought into and invested into renewable energy, making it become a reality had become a problem. So then in the 1950s and 1960s temperatures were dropping and an idea about carbon in the atmosphere from a study back in 1896 regarding combustible energy and the carbon produced was starting to be used as the blame. It was bringing on an ice age. Then in 1980 temperatures were on the rise and by the mid 1980s the idea about the coming ice age had all but died. Then in 1988 the temperature had been rising for the last 8 years and then global warming became the topic of discussion. Now for the past 16 years or since 1996 the temperature has stayed flat. No global warming no global cooling but we still are trying to make policy regarding a research that has no supporting evidence. Why you ask well the reason is simple and the reason is money. All the investments over the past nearly 100 years are not wasted. They need renewable energy to take off so they can make a profit and maintain credibility. They cannot afford to wait another 100 or more years before these things might, I repeat might, be needed. So they need policies to help force renewable energy on people because it is more expensive.

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

Bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is not one Scientific Society, not one National Academy of Science, and not one major University that denies the reality of AGW. Here is the statement of the Scientific Society with the largest number of scientists involved in climate study, the American Geophyical Union.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate

Now if you like I can give you similiar statements from almost every Scientific Society from all the countries in the world.

It says human cause it but provide no evidence to prove the climate change is manmade. Climate change has occurred on this planet always. To use evidence of climate change as evidence humans are causing heating on the planet does not work. Ok so the planet was heating up but that does not in and of itself prove that man has done it. Saying it is a result of humans is a guess with no facts to prove it. The planet cooled and heated in the past without humans. How can we just assume that this time is because of humans without proof? Who can say that the rise in temperature would not have occurred with or without human interaction? In fact there is more evidence to support the idea that it is a normal cycle than there is to prove it is manmade. As far as the bullshit comment, the earth’s temperature had not increased over the past 16 years so that does mean that warming has ended. If is currently flat with no real warming or cooling.

 

[FJO]

Saying that humans cause global warming the same as saying that the rooster's crowing causes daybreak.

 

[lukelk]

yes the earth goes through cycles, the man made part works like this, it pushes these cycles outside of normal bounds. I would also like to say, the OP said it stopped in 96, now he says its happening, but its not man made. i am not an expert on climate change science. but I can tell you this, if some thing was wrong with my body, and I went to 100 doctors, 99 of them tell me once thing, 1 tells me another, am I going to go with the 1 or the 99? Also I dont like to make this point cause it gives ground that there is debate about the validity of Climate change, but...... ok there are 2 paths, the first we invest a lot of money into changing the way we do things, and it turns our climate change is NOT happening and its NOT man made, what have me lost? money.......the other way, to say climate change is NOT happening there for there is no need to change on a large scale how we do things, but IT IS happening. what we do we lose? civilization as we know it.

so would I rather bet and prepair for the worst or would I work under the assumption that nothing is happening and we are all fucked, you tell me.

 

[healthmyths]

Yea I watched a special made by a scientist/photographer (initially a global warming sceptic) who has spent the last several years documenting the melting of glacial ice. Miles of ice have disappeared from several different areas up north.

I can't believe that tv is allowed to show shit like that. You know, photographic "proof" that our earth is warming and ice is melting more rapidly than ever thought possible.

How can they let that shit be televised? Why someone might look and listen to the information this man presented and not believe hacks like you.

Wouldn't that be a shame? You with your opinion article and this guy with proof. Who you gonna believe?

Who would you believe then in this situation where there were only 4 recording stations for 12.5% of the EARTH's LAND MASS.. in other words

We found [U.S. weather] stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat.
We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.
Are surface temperature records reliable?

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source." (Watts 2009)


"The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

 

[lukelk]

i dont get how some people are SOOOOOO able to believe what you do

 

[longknife]

This puts the whole thing into perspective:

BOOM: Gold Standard of Temperature Data Proves Earth Is Cooling In Spite of Dramatic Increases in CO2

by directorblue @ Doug Ross @ Journal: BOOM: Gold Standard of Temperature Data Proves Earth Is Cooling In Spite of Dramatic Increases in CO2

HadCRUT is the dataset of monthly temperature records formed by combining the sea surface temperature records compiled by the Hadley Centre of the Met Office and the land surface temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. --Source

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uqo4lsN-H08/UHtJbApxNuI/AAAAAAAA7pQ/Fj9MfBASbIw/s1600/121014-hadcrut.jpg
HadCRUT is the United Nations' gold-standard for the measurement of global temperatures. The data-set proves that over the last 15 years (180 months) the Earth has cooled, not warmed as predicted.

HadCRUT released their latest global temperature dataset today, which confirmed what both NOAA and NASA reported earlier this month - that global temps declined during July 2012.

In addition, the plot of the HadCRUT and CO2 data for the last 15 years, through July 2012, is very revealing.

Contrary to what the mainstream press reports and exaggerates about "global warming," the world has actually been in a stable-to-cooling phase since the El Nino temperature spike of 1997/98.

Of course, if the NYTimes or WAPO or CNN or CBS or the AP were ever to report the actual cooling trend over the last 15 years (despite the massive amounts of human CO2 emissions) this would establish that they have been grossly misleading the public for years about consensus "global warming."

And as the press fully realize, the public that primarily relies on traditional media outlets are extremely gullible with little intellectual curiosity. Thus the media gets away with hysterical fear-mongering, half-truths and deceptions.

Conclusion: Long story short - human CO2 emissions are not causing rapid, accelerating global warming, per the IPCC's favored HadCRUT temperature dataset. Over the last 15 years, global temperatures have been relatively stable, with a slight global cooling trend being exhibited. All the IPCC's and NOAA's climate experts, their climate models and the professional doomsayers have been absolutely wrong about their catastrophic climate predictions, for over a decade now - and not a single mainstream press outlet reports this. Solid advice to gullible: don't believe anything the mainstream press outlets "report."

In a curious semi-coincidence, the invaluable Anthony Watts relays word that over 2000 new low temperature records were set in October.

In the continental USA, there were 137 high temperature type records versus 857 low temperature type records this past week , a 6-1 difference. Last week there were 1154 low temperature type records putting the two week total for October at 2011. There were also 24 new snowfall records set this week in the upper plains.

Once again, if this had been summer, and the numbers reversed, you’d see Seth Borenstein writing articles for AP telling us this is ‘what global warming looks like’. So far not a peep out of Seth on this cold wave and what it is supposed to mean.

But nothing -- not facts, logic, reason or science -- can dissuade the Eco-Statists from their plans to de-industrialize America. Or the hacks at the Dissociative Press and the rest of antique media from spreading their destructive lies.

Which is why we need to flush the Democrat Party from office in November -- at every level of government.

 

[depotoo]

Yea I watched a special made by a scientist/photographer (initially a global warming sceptic) who has spent the last several years documenting the melting of glacial ice. Miles of ice have disappeared from several different areas up north.

I can't believe that tv is allowed to show shit like that. You know, photographic "proof" that our earth is warming and ice is melting more rapidly than ever thought possible.

How can they let that shit be televised? Why someone might look and listen to the information this man presented and not believe hacks like you.

Wouldn't that be a shame? You with your opinion article and this guy with proof. Who you gonna believe?

Ice is thinning in some areas and thickening in others. I tell you that you democrats take information and don't even question it. You do no research and just trust what you are being told is the truth. The fact is that you can set out to prove whatever you want and can find evidence to support your views. It is only things that cannot be disproven that are fact.

Feature

and every bit of this 'science', as they so inapporpriately call it, is manipulated to make millions for their causes. Models are manipulated, data sets are manipulated, etc. until they can claim victory which lines their pockets.
There is climate change going on, which has always gone on, and will continue to go on after we are gone and the fat cats will pass on their manipulation techniques to the next set of manipulators so the naive can continue to finance their false causes. Unfortunately the young have yet to live through the different dillusions in which they have been proven false from in the 1960's - 1970's. What is funny is to see all their new reasons as to why their data isn't coming in as they claimed, and they revise, manipulate, etc. all over again. And yet people still fall for it. And will pay with their pocket books to line someone elses pocket books.

 

[miami_thomas]

yes the earth goes through cycles, the man made part works like this, it pushes these cycles outside of normal bounds. I would also like to say, the OP said it stopped in 96, now he says its happening, but its not man made. i am not an expert on climate change science. but I can tell you this, if some thing was wrong with my body, and I went to 100 doctors, 99 of them tell me once thing, 1 tells me another, am I going to go with the 1 or the 99? Also I dont like to make this point cause it gives ground that there is debate about the validity of Climate change, but...... ok there are 2 paths, the first we invest a lot of money into changing the way we do things, and it turns our climate change is NOT happening and its NOT man made, what have me lost? money.......the other way, to say climate change is NOT happening there for there is no need to change on a large scale how we do things, but IT IS happening. what we do we lose? civilization as we know it.

so would I rather bet and prepair for the worst or would I work under the assumption that nothing is happening and we are all fucked, you tell me.

First 99 is not an accurate number. The number is 97 and those 97 only agree that climate change is happening not that it is manmade. On your other point, so you are saying we should just spend our money on every possible thing that could destroy the planet with no proof needed? Trust me when I say we could come up with a trillion different things that could destroy the planet and could not afford to fix them all. But there are things that are real like the farm run offs killing the river and the river mouths but instead of spending our money trying to find an answer for a proven issue we would rather waste our money on something we probably can not control.

 

[sakinago]

yes the earth goes through cycles, the man made part works like this, it pushes these cycles outside of normal bounds. I would also like to say, the OP said it stopped in 96, now he says its happening, but its not man made. i am not an expert on climate change science. but I can tell you this, if some thing was wrong with my body, and I went to 100 doctors, 99 of them tell me once thing, 1 tells me another, am I going to go with the 1 or the 99? Also I dont like to make this point cause it gives ground that there is debate about the validity of Climate change, but...... ok there are 2 paths, the first we invest a lot of money into changing the way we do things, and it turns our climate change is NOT happening and its NOT man made, what have me lost? money.......the other way, to say climate change is NOT happening there for there is no need to change on a large scale how we do things, but IT IS happening. what we do we lose? civilization as we know it.

so would I rather bet and prepair for the worst or would I work under the assumption that nothing is happening and we are all fucked, you tell me.

First 99 is not an accurate number. The number is 97 and those 97 only agree that climate change is happening not that it is manmade. On your other point, so you are saying we should just spend our money on every possible thing that could destroy the planet with no proof needed? Trust me when I say we could come up with a trillion different things that could destroy the planet and could not afford to fix them all. But there are things that are real like the farm run offs killing the river and the river mouths but instead of spending our money trying to find an answer for a proven issue we would rather waste our money on something we probably can not control.

Theres a lot of money in doing environmental research, from what I hear its a pretty sweat gig.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures

Read more: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

That's where any person who has an inkling of statistics would stop reading.

When they found out the source is one of the main proponents of AGW? How does science work in your universe?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures

Read more: Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

That's where any person who has an inkling of statistics would stop reading.

When they found out the source is one of the main proponents of AGW? How does science work in your universe?

It doesn't work by posting links to blogs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's where any person who has an inkling of statistics would stop reading.

When they found out the source is one of the main proponents of AGW? How does science work in your universe?

It doesn't work by posting links to blogs.

The Daily Mail is a newspaper, the data is from Hadcrut 4, and is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.

Yet you, the poster who claims to be a scientist, dismiss it outright.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

When they found out the source is one of the main proponents of AGW? How does science work in your universe?

It doesn't work by posting links to blogs.

The Daily Mail is a newspaper, the data is from Hadcrut 4, and is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.

Yet you, the poster who claims to be a scientist, dismiss it outright.

Sure thing bud

 

[Bigfoot]

90% of the worlds ice is in the Antarctic and so is 80% of the worlds fresh water. The eastern Antarctic ice pack which is several times larger then the western shelf is expanding and cooling. I don't see the problem some of you guys claim is dire. If I were you I would relax a little bit and knock off those negative waves.

 

[aalok]

With all that in mind, is clearly a scam. Of claiming to be on behalf of all scientists when, in fact, then or now, few scientists agree. (2) they put their data, while ignoring better data from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the NASA Marshall Institute lobbying group.

 

[IanC]

if you look at the PDO and AMO, throw in the ENSO to churn things up, you will find a surprising correlation to the temperatures found over the last many decades. the climate models are very poor at reproducing these natural variations, so they are basically ignored. corellation can also be found for solar or even other things for which the mechanisms arent very clear.

the models find CO2 to be a dominant factor because of circular reasoning, and the suppression of other factors.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The warming that began 20,000 years ago that raised temperature 8 degrees that melt the ice that covered northern USA and all of Canada continues and has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2