Global Warming stopped in 1996

[IanC]

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

Frank- we all know that. people are concern about what is happening now, at the surface of the earth. climate has always changed, that is a given. the increase in CO2 recently is different. can it, has it made more than a trivial difference? who knows but we should find out. just not with climate models that are programmed to find CO2 as a major factor.

 

[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

Frank- we all know that. people are concern about what is happening now, at the surface of the earth. climate has always changed, that is a given. the increase in CO2 recently is different. can it, has it made more than a trivial difference? who knows but we should find out. just not with climate models that are programmed to find CO2 as a major factor.

This modern CO2 has to be different because there is a 600,000 consecutive year data set that shows CO2 lagging warming

 

[IanC]

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

Frank- we all know that. people are concern about what is happening now, at the surface of the earth. climate has always changed, that is a given. the increase in CO2 recently is different. can it, has it made more than a trivial difference? who knows but we should find out. just not with climate models that are programmed to find CO2 as a major factor.

This modern CO2 has to be different because there is a 600,000 consecutive year data set that shows CO2 lagging warming

no, it is different because mankind has impacted the levels, not natural equilibriums due to temperature.

 

[mamooth]

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

No there's not. Only the most deluded denialist cultists believe such an idiot conspiracy yarn. The same cranks also think CFCs don't deplete ozone, DDT is harmless, Obama was born in Kenya, the polls are rigged, and zionists control the world financial system.

That's all we have to do, you know, point out that y'all are mouth-breathing conspiracy cranks. Sucks to be you, but that's not our problem. Someone has to rub your face in it, to discourage others in the future from being tempted to act that way.

 

[longknife]

HEADLINE O' THE DAY: Yep, the Science Is Settled

by directorblue @ Doug Ross @ Journal: HEADLINE O' THE DAY: Yep, the Science Is Settled

Al Gore hardest hit:

Last week The Mail on Sunday provoked an international storm by publishing a new official world temperature graph showing there has been no global warming since 1997... The figures came from a database called Hadcrut 4 and were issued by the Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University.

But the Met Office, whose lead was then followed by climate change campaigners, accused The Mail on Sunday of cherry-picking data in order to mislead readers. It even claimed it had not released a ‘report’, as we had stated, although it put out the figures from which we drew our graph ten days ago.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-29ncHKodpTg/UIXmjM3TeiI/AAAAAAAA8dQ/cOGPdPCMrqg/s1600/121022-warming.jpg


Another critic said that climate expert Professor Judith Curry had protested at the way she was represented in our report. However, Professor Curry, a former US National Research Council Climate Research Committee member and the author of more than 190 peer-reviewed papers, responded: ‘A note to defenders of the idea that the planet has been warming for the past 16 years. Raise the level of your game. Nothing in the Met Office’s statement .  .  . effectively refutes Mr Rose’s argument that there has been no increase in the global average surface temperature for the past 16 years... ‘Use this as an opportunity to communicate honestly with the public about what we know and what we don’t know about climate change. Take a lesson from other scientists who acknowledge the “pause”.’

The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: ‘We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.’

In other words, all of the monstrous social engineering programs, the takeover of industrial policy-setting, and the rest of the hysteria fomented by the Eco-Statists -- and especially the Leftist kooks at the EPA -- are completely, utterly groundless.

There's no global warming occurring on this planet.

Which, by my count, is reason 6 kajillion that this administration must be removed from office in November. And, if you're an Eco-Kook reading along, remember: election day is always the first Wednesday in November.

 

[longknife]

Warmists Really Bummed That Climate Change (Hoax) Ignored In All Debates

by William Teach

Is hotcoldwetdry dead as a political policy? (via Climate Depot, which has a good roundup of hotcoldwetdry being ignored) (UK Guardian) The Pentagon ranks it as a national security threat and, left unchecked, climate change is expected to cost the US economy billions of dollars every year – and yet it has proved the great unmentionable of this election campaign. Amid unprecedented melting of the Arctic summer sea ice, new temperature records in the US and a historic drought, the last of three presidential debates wound up on Monday night without Barack ...More @ Warmists Really Bummed That Climate Change (Hoax) Ignored In All Debates | Right Wing News

 

[longknife]

Flatly wrong global warming denial | Bad Astronomy

Sometimes climate change deniers make it all too easy.

The UK paper Daily Mail has a long history of courting climate change denial, and apparently it has no wish to change. It recently posted an atrocious article called "Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it". The article was written by David Rose, who wrote a pretty inaccurate article earlier this year on a similar topic.

In fact, this new article was so blatantly wrong that the MET office – the national weather service for the UK – wrote a rebuttal to it detailing the flaws. To start with, they point out they did recently update their global temperature databases, but that’s a very different thing than "quietly releasing a report", as Rose claims. Cue the conspiracy music!

It gets worse from there. They take on his points one at a time and take them down. I highly recommend reading them. And if you haven’t gotten your fill of it, or you’re still not convinced, you can check out The ...Thge rest @ Flatly wrong global warming denial | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank- we all know that. people are concern about what is happening now, at the surface of the earth. climate has always changed, that is a given. the increase in CO2 recently is different. can it, has it made more than a trivial difference? who knows but we should find out. just not with climate models that are programmed to find CO2 as a major factor.

This modern CO2 has to be different because there is a 600,000 consecutive year data set that shows CO2 lagging warming

no, it is different because mankind has impacted the levels, not natural equilibriums due to temperature.

Sorry, honey, that's not what the Ice Core show and clicking your heels together three trillion times and saying "CO2 causes global warming" still does not make it true.

Time for the Warmers to get a new theory, one that makes sense this time

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Then there's this

"...in the wood's well-preserved cellulose, the researchers found that western Canadian subarctic temperatures were 21 to 30 degrees F (12 to 17 degrees C) warmer and four times wetter than they are today."

 

[flacaltenn]

Flatly wrong global warming denial | Bad Astronomy

Sometimes climate change deniers make it all too easy.

The UK paper Daily Mail has a long history of courting climate change denial, and apparently it has no wish to change. It recently posted an atrocious article called "Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it". The article was written by David Rose, who wrote a pretty inaccurate article earlier this year on a similar topic.

In fact, this new article was so blatantly wrong that the MET office – the national weather service for the UK – wrote a rebuttal to it detailing the flaws. To start with, they point out they did recently update their global temperature databases, but that’s a very different thing than "quietly releasing a report", as Rose claims. Cue the conspiracy music!

It gets worse from there. They take on his points one at a time and take them down. I highly recommend reading them. And if you haven’t gotten your fill of it, or you’re still not convinced, you can check out The ...Thge rest @ Flatly wrong global warming denial | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

I Don't get the point of this post.. Because you already posted stuff that vindicates what Rose and the Daily Mail asserted.. All the MET did was cling to the measly 0.03degC per decade number that isn't even statisticallly significant.

The statement is virtually irrefutable. That there has not been a significant warming trend since 1997..

Now --- does that mean it's gonna stay this way? Probably not..

The info at Discover Mag (are they SERIOUS?) is SO desparate and SO FOS that you just have to laugh..

Rose picked a "FRAUDULENT Starting Point"???

NO -- it's an observation that between those years --- VIRTUALLY NOTHING HAS HAPPENED... If the folks reading "Discover" are impressed by that smackdown --- they probably still get their science from the Nickelodeon Channel..

 

[IanC]

This modern CO2 has to be different because there is a 600,000 consecutive year data set that shows CO2 lagging warming

no, it is different because mankind has impacted the levels, not natural equilibriums due to temperature.

Sorry, honey, that's not what the Ice Core show and clicking your heels together three trillion times and saying "CO2 causes global warming" still does not make it true.

Time for the Warmers to get a new theory, one that makes sense this time

one of the biggest problems in AGW is that both sides talk past each other, that both sides give answers but not to the questions asked.

Frank- your answer is a reasonable response to 'have there been runaway temperature increases to CO2 in the past'. but that was not my statement. I said we need to investigate the unique situation of the last 60 years where humans have made a significant impact on the concentration of CO2. we need to know what impacts it will have, here at the surface, in the short term future (the next 100 or 500 years), and whether adaptation is sufficient to mitigate or whether we need to make additional manmade changes to offset the ones we have already put into action. collapsing our society to stop production of CO2 is not a realistic option but developing new technologies is.

investigation into the climate sensitivity for 2XCO2 is rapidly dropping the figure of 3-5C down to less than 2C and perhaps even less than the 1.1C theoretical calculation as postitive feedbacks are shown to be very weak, non-existent, or actually negative. my opinion is that slightly warmer temps and more CO2 for plants is a good thing but that shouldnt stop us from trying to learn every thing we can.

perhaps the biggest potential problem is Sea Level Rise. ice has been melting since the LIA and we have had a 2mm/yr rise for most of our measured history. presumably we can continue to adapt to that. the transient bump in SLR during the 80s and 90s when temps were actually going up has dropped back down again now that temps have stabilized. this calls into doubt many features of AGW theory that have predicted continued temperature and SLR increases.

I am a lukewarmer. I dont credulously believe what either side is saying. so far the warmist side has had the most exposure in the media and the most papers printed in the journals. AGW theory doesnt make sense to me because it disagrees with the actual data in almost every area. I dont need to know the right answers to recognise wrong answers, and climate science is full of wrong and distorted answers, often to irrelevent questions.

AGW theory is made up of two parts.
1.CO2 affects temperature
2.increased temperature will cause catastrophe

I believe in the first part but I dont believe the second. proof of the first part is NOT proof of the second.