Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... an

[flacaltenn]

Ok.. Sanity check.. Time to put on the big boy pants and note that 14 years is NOT enough to establish a climate trend..

However, sitting at a relative temperature MAXIMUM WILL continue to melt ice and we will surely enjoy fighting over that at least... LOL...

 

[ScienceRocks]

LOL. A more accurate graph, and one that gives a lie to this whole idea.

UAH V5.5 Global Temp. Update for Sept. 2012: +0.34 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

We both must admit that 99% of the warming is occurring in the Arctic. Not really global.

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL. A more accurate graph, and one that gives a lie to this whole idea.

UAH V5.5 Global Temp. Update for Sept. 2012: +0.34 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

We both must admit that 99% of the warming is occurring in the Arctic. Not really global.

Never will..........it decimates the narrative. These people cede nothing and never will. But it doesnt matter..........since the e-mail fiasco in East Anglia the escalator has been steadily going directly down. Its not even debatable. This report and any future reports are just gravy. Gravy.


Also on DRUDGE today: Antactic Ice expanding!!!!! Only seen by 30 million people..........yuk..........yuk..........

 

[skookerasbil]

This is absolutely fascinating...........its like this information never happened for the environmental radicals. They are highly content with just letting it slip off the forum as if it never happened. What a bunch of frauds, just like this whole concept of the world about to implode due to warming.

These people..........it is critical for them to keep this hoax alive.

Well...........looks like we'll have to keep reminding people that there is new information from the Brits that calls BS on this whole fad.

 

[EricR]

The science of global warming, the radiative characteristics of gasses in particular, cannot be disputed. Without mittigating influences, given a colum of gas irradiated by the sun, with an absorbant medium at the bottom of the colum (the earth, land or water), and a black body a near 0 kelvin at the top, outerspace, as green house gasses are increased, the bottom of the gas colum will get hotter while the top of the gas colum will get cooler. In the atmosphere, mittigating influences include atmospheric circulation, top to bottom, and clouds, to name a couple. The science is not a conspiracy. We primarily live at the bottom of the colum of gas, near sea level, and therefore the surface temperature at sea level is most relavant. What is happening to the surface temperatures at sea level? What is/will happening to the atmospheric temperature at other elevations, from a simple radiative model, depends on the elevation. In the atmosphere, it is even less clear due to the aforementioned mittigating factors. Our choice is do we continue to alter atmospheric chemistry and debate the effect, or do we try to minimize our impact?

 

[flacaltenn]

The science of global warming, the radiative characteristics of gasses in particular, cannot be disputed. Without mittigating influences, given a colum of gas irradiated by the sun, with an absorbant medium at the bottom of the colum (the earth, land or water), and a black body a near 0 kelvin at the top, outerspace, as green house gasses are increased, the bottom of the gas colum will get hotter while the top of the gas colum will get cooler. In the atmosphere, mittigating influences include atmospheric circulation, top to bottom, and clouds, to name a couple. The science is not a conspiracy. We primarily live at the bottom of the colum of gas, near sea level, and therefore the surface temperature at sea level is most relavant. What is happening to the surface temperatures at sea level? What is/will happening to the atmospheric temperature at other elevations, from a simple radiative model, depends on the elevation. In the atmosphere, it is even less clear due to the aforementioned mittigating factors. Our choice is do we continue to alter atmospheric chemistry and debate the effect, or do we try to minimize our impact?

I have no problem with the concept that "thin blue line" of atmosphere keeps our planet from being a frozen ball of ice.. Problem is --- I don't believe that CO2 explains MOST of the historical climate extremes on this planet alone. This laser focus on a gas that absorbs heat roughly in similiar bands to water vapor is odd to me.. Especially when you see historical records of the Earth having a CO2 content 10 times HIGHER than current readings and life flourished.

There is a world of NEW knowledge out there from our brief exploitation of space based science. And all that is only 25 yrs of "good quality" real time observation.. You can call me a denier -- but I'm certain that CO2 doesn't contribute as much to the current warming as it is proclaimed to.. And that the focus on that "theory" is politically and financially motivated..

Nothing about the climate is as simple as SINGLE GLOBAL MEAN SURFACE TEMP. That's a laughable concept given that Earth has SEVERAL distinct climate zones all subject to temporal and spatial variations... Folks who hang their judgements on such a convienient FABRICATION -- really are NOT following the science debate..

 

[flacaltenn]

Where's my manners??? Welcome to USMB EricR !!!!!

Good place for your first post.. Considering MOST of the board is in spasms about election year B.S.

 

[westwall]

The science of global warming, the radiative characteristics of gasses in particular, cannot be disputed. Without mittigating influences, given a colum of gas irradiated by the sun, with an absorbant medium at the bottom of the colum (the earth, land or water), and a black body a near 0 kelvin at the top, outerspace, as green house gasses are increased, the bottom of the gas colum will get hotter while the top of the gas colum will get cooler. In the atmosphere, mittigating influences include atmospheric circulation, top to bottom, and clouds, to name a couple. The science is not a conspiracy. We primarily live at the bottom of the colum of gas, near sea level, and therefore the surface temperature at sea level is most relavant. What is happening to the surface temperatures at sea level? What is/will happening to the atmospheric temperature at other elevations, from a simple radiative model, depends on the elevation. In the atmosphere, it is even less clear due to the aforementioned mittigating factors. Our choice is do we continue to alter atmospheric chemistry and debate the effect, or do we try to minimize our impact?

I have no problem with the concept that "thin blue line" of atmosphere keeps our planet from being a frozen ball of ice.. Problem is --- I don't believe that CO2 explains MOST of the historical climate extremes on this planet alone. This laser focus on a gas that absorbs heat roughly in similiar bands to water vapor is odd to me.. Especially when you see historical records of the Earth having a CO2 content 10 times HIGHER than current readings and life flourished.

There is a world of NEW knowledge out there from our brief exploitation of space based science. And all that is only 25 yrs of "good quality" real time observation.. You can call me a denier -- but I'm certain that CO2 doesn't contribute as much to the current warming as it is proclaimed to.. And that the focus on that "theory" is politically and financially motivated..

Nothing about the climate is as simple as SINGLE GLOBAL MEAN SURFACE TEMP. That's a laughable concept given that Earth has SEVERAL distinct climate zones all subject to temporal and spatial variations... Folks who hang their judgements on such a convienient FABRICATION -- really are NOT following the science debate..

The sole focus on CO2 is only explainable when one looks on it in political terms. CO2 is semi measurable, hence it is taxable.

 

[unshaken]

Global warming stopped 16 years ago

But did it really exist? I'm not sure at all.

 

[skookerasbil]

The science of global warming, the radiative characteristics of gasses in particular, cannot be disputed. Without mittigating influences, given a colum of gas irradiated by the sun, with an absorbant medium at the bottom of the colum (the earth, land or water), and a black body a near 0 kelvin at the top, outerspace, as green house gasses are increased, the bottom of the gas colum will get hotter while the top of the gas colum will get cooler. In the atmosphere, mittigating influences include atmospheric circulation, top to bottom, and clouds, to name a couple. The science is not a conspiracy. We primarily live at the bottom of the colum of gas, near sea level, and therefore the surface temperature at sea level is most relavant. What is happening to the surface temperatures at sea level? What is/will happening to the atmospheric temperature at other elevations, from a simple radiative model, depends on the elevation. In the atmosphere, it is even less clear due to the aforementioned mittigating factors. Our choice is do we continue to alter atmospheric chemistry and debate the effect, or do we try to minimize our impact?

 

[skookerasbil]

dang this forum has been dead for days since this story broke. I think the k00ks are getting sick of getting kicked in the head for the past 5 years. Fuckers bust their ass posting up volumes of stuff and year after year, they fall flat on their face. I do give 'em credit for having the balls to show up in here despite getting a public flogging on a daily basis!!!

 

[polarbear]

dang this forum has been dead for days since this story broke. I think the k00ks are getting sick of getting kicked in the head for the past 5 years. Fuckers bust their ass posting up volumes of stuff and year after year, they fall flat on their face. I do give 'em credit for having the balls to show up in here despite getting a public flogging on a daily basis!!!

In Europe they are still at it as usual. Today almost every major newspaper had a story of a "study" some freak in London did who claims he is an expert in Wildlife...:
Artensterben: Nahrungsmangel und nicht Klimaerwärmung setzt Tieren zu - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Dramatisches Artensterben Klimawandel lässt Nahrungskette zusammenbrechen

Tausende von Tierarten werden infolge des Klimawandels in den nächsten hundert Jahren aussterben, warnen Forscher. Doch die steigenden Temperaturen sind nicht das Hauptproblem - vielmehr gerät das Zusammenspiel zwischen verschiedenen Arten zunehmend aus dem Gleichgewicht.

He claims that THOUSANDS of species will become extinct in the next 100 years due to global warming disrupting the food chain for wild life...and mentions (Mexican) big horn sheep first and foremost.
Well I don`t know about Mexican big horn sheep but I do know that in Canada they are thriving. All the way from the Yukon, the Alaska panhandle and through the Cassiar Mountains. I drove that stretch many times every year for many years. Matter of fact You have to watch that You don`t run into them. They have been at record numbers ever since even Indians have been banned from hunting them. Then when You get further south into British Columbia around Kamloops BC, there they are a threatened species. But it`s got nothing to do with climate change and everything with lung-worm. They got infected by the free roaming cattle that graze in these Mountains. Bison, same problem. All along the Yukon and NWT border are signs to shoot any bison on sight to stop this lug-worm problem being dragged in further north.
The same dick head in London also claims that polar bears are going to be extinct as well within the next 100 years due to global warming .
Meanwhile for the past 5 years in Canada they are setting all time population records ever since records are kept.
Last year when I found out that Westwall is a Geologist who`s been up the Alaska highway I asked him if he was the geologist whom I rescued at Muncho Lake from a big horn sheep. That ram had him pinned for several hours and he could not get back into his Jeep till I bumped that ram ...I love the pun..with my old Dodge Ram..But it turned out to be a different geologist who did tell this story to Westwall when he got to Fairbanks...how he had an all afternoon stand-off with a ram and all he had in his hand was his rock hammer.
I wonder if this dickhead expert from London would still be able to publish such crap, after he comes up here and tries hug a ram...or better yet a "starving polar bear". I`ld even spring for the plane ticket...it would be worth it.
I`ve read all the (German) reader responses and of the 29 who responded to this article in thee most leftist Newspaper in Germany there is only 1 sucker who fell for it,..after their (Solar & windmill) electric bills just got jacked up another 47% they are in no mood to get lectured by a "limey" in London...besides right now in Germany they are all way more interested right now in the U.S. election campaign & the current polls....just like we are in Canada...nobody even bothers to watch the local news any more till this is over.

 

[skookerasbil]

dang this forum has been dead for days since this story broke. I think the k00ks are getting sick of getting kicked in the head for the past 5 years. Fuckers bust their ass posting up volumes of stuff and year after year, they fall flat on their face. I do give 'em credit for having the balls to show up in here despite getting a public flogging on a daily basis!!!

In Europe they are still at it as usual. Today almost every major newspaper had a story of a "study" some freak in London did who claims he is an expert in Wildlife...:
Artensterben: Nahrungsmangel und nicht Klimaerwärmung setzt Tieren zu - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Dramatisches Artensterben Klimawandel lässt Nahrungskette zusammenbrechen

Tausende von Tierarten werden infolge des Klimawandels in den nächsten hundert Jahren aussterben, warnen Forscher. Doch die steigenden Temperaturen sind nicht das Hauptproblem - vielmehr gerät das Zusammenspiel zwischen verschiedenen Arten zunehmend aus dem Gleichgewicht.

He claims that THOUSANDS of species will become extinct in the next 100 years due to global warming disrupting the food chain for wild life...and mentions (Mexican) big horn sheep first and foremost.
Well I don`t know about Mexican big horn sheep but I do know that in Canada they are thriving. All the way from the Yukon, the Alaska panhandle and through the Cassiar Mountains. I drove that stretch many times every year for many years. Matter of fact You have to watch that You don`t run into them. They have been at record numbers ever since even Indians have been banned from hunting them. Then when You get further south into British Columbia around Kamloops BC, there they are a threatened species. But it`s got nothing to do with climate change and everything with lung-worm. They got infected by the free roaming cattle that graze in these Mountains. Bison, same problem. All along the Yukon and NWT border are signs to shoot any bison on sight to stop this lug-worm problem being dragged in further north.
The same dick head in London also claims that polar bears are going to be extinct as well within the next 100 years due to global warming .
Meanwhile for the past 5 years in Canada they are setting all time population records ever since records are kept.
Last year when I found out that Westwall is a Geologist who`s been up the Alaska highway I asked him if he was the geologist whom I rescued at Muncho Lake from a big horn sheep. That ram had him pinned for several hours and he could not get back into his Jeep till I bumped that ram ...I love the pun..with my old Dodge Ram..But it turned out to be a different geologist who did tell this story to Westwall when he got to Fairbanks...how he had an all afternoon stand-off with a ram and all he had in his hand was his rock hammer.
I wonder if this dickhead expert from London would still be able to publish such crap, after he comes up here and tries hug a ram...or better yet a "starving polar bear". I`ld even spring for the plane ticket...it would be worth it.
I`ve read all the (German) reader responses and of the 29 who responded to this article in thee most leftist Newspaper in Germany there is only 1 sucker who fell for it,..after their (Solar & windmill) electric bills just got jacked up another 47% they are in no mood to get lectured by a "limey" in London...besides right now in Germany they are all way more interested right now in the U.S. election campaign & the current polls....just like we are in Canada...nobody even bothers to watch the local news any more till this is over.

well..........you gotta admit it is fascinating the shit they come up with..........

 

[flacaltenn]

dang this forum has been dead for days since this story broke. I think the k00ks are getting sick of getting kicked in the head for the past 5 years. Fuckers bust their ass posting up volumes of stuff and year after year, they fall flat on their face. I do give 'em credit for having the balls to show up in here despite getting a public flogging on a daily basis!!!

As Bugs Bunny would say --- "It's not Wabbit season".... Starting to get nippy outside, the heats' on, energy bills are getting higher.. It forces a kind of "warmer hibernation".. Our Canadian buds are enjoying their extra 2 days of above freezing weather thanks to CO2.

Meanwhile --- The Minnesotans for Global Warming are looking forward to their annual convention...

 

[mamooth]

So, aside from the fact the Met said no such thing, and that warming is obvious to anyone who looks at the data, the OP was completely correct. That is, it got everything wrong, so it had to be right. Denialist logic. After all, it said what they wanted to hear, and no denialist is going to sully his pure thoughts with stupid things like independent research. There is whining to be done, liberals to be hated! Someone has to shriek hysterically at ear-splitting levels, and denialists are the crew to do it!

It's amusing, how a single propaganda piece is instantly echoed in every denialist blog across the world. The denialist cult certainly does have some obedient sheep, plus a fine propaganda arm. Why are they even pretending not to be pure political cranks? After all, it's not they're fooling anyone.

 

[flacaltenn]

So, aside from the fact the Met said no such thing, and that warming is obvious to anyone who looks at the data, the OP was completely correct. That is, it got everything wrong, so it had to be right. Denialist logic. After all, it said what they wanted to hear, and no denialist is going to sully his pure thoughts with stupid things like independent research. There is whining to be done, liberals to be hated! Someone has to shriek hysterically at ear-splitting levels, and denialists are the crew to do it!

It's amusing, how a single propaganda piece is instantly echoed in every denialist blog across the world. The denialist cult certainly does have some obedient sheep, plus a fine propaganda arm. Why are they even pretending not to be pure political cranks? After all, it's not they're fooling anyone.

OK Ok OK --- I'll be honest here if it pleases you.. The MET refutes this report by stating that the 16 yr trend is currently actually 0.03degC/decade.. So -- the rise over 16 yrs is actually 0.05degC or some nonsense.. They CAN'T say that this miniscule trend is STATISTICALLY significant anymore because the error bars in the surface data they're using won't let them..

So it's PERFECTLY OK for the Daily Mail tabloid to say that "no warming has occurred". Or even that no SIGNIFICANT warming has occured over sixteen years.. Wouldn't expect the Warming CLergy to say that would you? Even Phil Jones is now making statements about underestimating "natural climate drivers"..

Quit griping about how this factoid makes all the "resistance movement" blogs and start worrying WHY it's not picked up in the larger press.

So whatchagot to refute any of that? Things still going exactly as the AGW said it would? Still gonna cling to "the debate is over" and "we know EXACTLY how CO2 drives the surface temp:"?


C'mon now -- contribute something honest back...

 

[westwall]

So, aside from the fact the Met said no such thing, and that warming is obvious to anyone who looks at the data, the OP was completely correct. That is, it got everything wrong, so it had to be right. Denialist logic. After all, it said what they wanted to hear, and no denialist is going to sully his pure thoughts with stupid things like independent research. There is whining to be done, liberals to be hated! Someone has to shriek hysterically at ear-splitting levels, and denialists are the crew to do it!

It's amusing, how a single propaganda piece is instantly echoed in every denialist blog across the world. The denialist cult certainly does have some obedient sheep, plus a fine propaganda arm. Why are they even pretending not to be pure political cranks? After all, it's not they're fooling anyone.

OK Ok OK --- I'll be honest here if it pleases you.. The MET refutes this report by stating that the 16 yr trend is currently actually 0.03degC/decade.. So -- the rise over 16 yrs is actually 0.05degC or some nonsense.. They CAN'T say that this miniscule trend is STATISTICALLY significant anymore because the error bars in the surface data they're using won't let them..

So it's PERFECTLY OK for the Daily Mail tabloid to say that "no warming has occurred". Or even that no SIGNIFICANT warming has occured over sixteen years.. Wouldn't expect the Warming CLergy to say that would you? Even Phil Jones is now making statements about underestimating "natural climate drivers"..

Quit griping about how this factoid makes all the "resistance movement" blogs and start worrying WHY it's not picked up in the larger press.

So whatchagot to refute any of that? Things still going exactly as the AGW said it would? Still gonna cling to "the debate is over" and "we know EXACTLY how CO2 drives the surface temp:"?


C'mon now -- contribute something honest back...

Can't...religious fanatics don't do science...I keep tellin ya!

 

[flacaltenn]

So, aside from the fact the Met said no such thing, and that warming is obvious to anyone who looks at the data, the OP was completely correct. That is, it got everything wrong, so it had to be right. Denialist logic. After all, it said what they wanted to hear, and no denialist is going to sully his pure thoughts with stupid things like independent research. There is whining to be done, liberals to be hated! Someone has to shriek hysterically at ear-splitting levels, and denialists are the crew to do it!

It's amusing, how a single propaganda piece is instantly echoed in every denialist blog across the world. The denialist cult certainly does have some obedient sheep, plus a fine propaganda arm. Why are they even pretending not to be pure political cranks? After all, it's not they're fooling anyone.

OK Ok OK --- I'll be honest here if it pleases you.. The MET refutes this report by stating that the 16 yr trend is currently actually 0.03degC/decade.. So -- the rise over 16 yrs is actually 0.05degC or some nonsense.. They CAN'T say that this miniscule trend is STATISTICALLY significant anymore because the error bars in the surface data they're using won't let them..

So it's PERFECTLY OK for the Daily Mail tabloid to say that "no warming has occurred". Or even that no SIGNIFICANT warming has occured over sixteen years.. Wouldn't expect the Warming CLergy to say that would you? Even Phil Jones is now making statements about underestimating "natural climate drivers"..

Quit griping about how this factoid makes all the "resistance movement" blogs and start worrying WHY it's not picked up in the larger press.

So whatchagot to refute any of that? Things still going exactly as the AGW said it would? Still gonna cling to "the debate is over" and "we know EXACTLY how CO2 drives the surface temp:"?


C'mon now -- contribute something honest back...

Can't...religious fanatics don't do science...I keep tellin ya!

Mammy says "we shriek hysterically at ear-splitting levels"...... You know anybody like that around here? We party a lot lately, but the neighbors aren't complaining...

BTW: and for the record --- I consider myself both a Classic Liberal and a Classic Environmentalist. So it's not a hatred of "liberals" that comes into play here. It's a revulsion at the tainting of science and discovery. Driven largely by useful idiots of a "progressive" movement who want to hobble economic growth and development and population and knowledge.

LIBERALS have an inate distrust of authority and large obtrusive Govt. Progressives don't appear to have any self-preservation instincts at all.. That's why they NEED power and authority to save them from Darwinian extinction...

 

[westwall]

OK Ok OK --- I'll be honest here if it pleases you.. The MET refutes this report by stating that the 16 yr trend is currently actually 0.03degC/decade.. So -- the rise over 16 yrs is actually 0.05degC or some nonsense.. They CAN'T say that this miniscule trend is STATISTICALLY significant anymore because the error bars in the surface data they're using won't let them..

So it's PERFECTLY OK for the Daily Mail tabloid to say that "no warming has occurred". Or even that no SIGNIFICANT warming has occured over sixteen years.. Wouldn't expect the Warming CLergy to say that would you? Even Phil Jones is now making statements about underestimating "natural climate drivers"..

Quit griping about how this factoid makes all the "resistance movement" blogs and start worrying WHY it's not picked up in the larger press.

So whatchagot to refute any of that? Things still going exactly as the AGW said it would? Still gonna cling to "the debate is over" and "we know EXACTLY how CO2 drives the surface temp:"?


C'mon now -- contribute something honest back...

Can't...religious fanatics don't do science...I keep tellin ya!

Mammy says "we shriek hysterically at ear-splitting levels"...... You know anybody like that around here? We party a lot lately, but the neighbors aren't complaining...

BTW: and for the record --- I consider myself both a Classic Liberal and a Classic Environmentalist. So it's not a hatred of "liberals" that comes into play here. It's a revulsion at the tainting of science and discovery. Driven largely by useful idiots of a "progressive" movement who want to hobble economic growth and development and population and knowledge.

LIBERALS have an inate distrust of authority and large obtrusive Govt. Progressives don't appear to have any self-preservation instincts at all.. That's why they NEED power and authority to save them from Darwinian extinction...

Describes me pretty well too. I am a long time environmentalist (very early member of Greenpeace, before they turned into a socialist front org.) and socially very liberal. However, I am a geologist (environmental, go figure) and a despise poor science and unethical behavior from anyone within the scientific community.