Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

[Pete7469]

What we have here is a real time demonstration of the vast ignorance of the 'Conservative' viewpoint. Kiddies, you can't make reality by believing in stupidity. Your willful ignorance is sadly humorous.

Funny how we say the same thing about you bed wetters.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.
According to The Economist, "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified." On face value, Hansen agrees the slowdown in global temperature rises can be seen as "good news".
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

By the way Hames Hansen has been the BIGGEST champion of Global Warming!!!

Hmmm... those of us who said the jury was still out on Global Warming... who were the brunt of idiotic comments, jeers as being anti-science... please
I'm not gloating but here is my little dance!!!

View attachment 25149

Yes, the pause in the warming is good news. Temporary good news. Due to the convergence of the massive aerosol release from the burning of coal in China and India, the decrease in the energy we are getting from the sun, and the several strong La Ninas versus the one strong El Nino we have seen since 1998.

However, we have seen temporary pauses, and even downturns, in the temperature before.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

So the cool is temp but the short raise was really the norm? This is why you are laughed at.

 

[Circe]

The only climate change of interest is that which took place in the past.

We have actual data about that.

There is no data about climate change in the future, because it hasn't happened and we can't know what will happen.

So any so-called "model" about the climate in the future is necessarily nonsense and purely political.

They can't correctly predict the weather three days from now: how can they possibly predict it a century from now? It's just politics. Liberals trying to bully conservatives in one direction or another.

 

[healthmyths]

Science Proves Man-made Global Warming

"Before the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels were about 280 parts per million, which falls within the average range of an inter-Ice Age warm period. Now, though, because of the burning of fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2 is at 390 ppm. This is a very large change over a short period of time. What this means is that over the last 300 years, we’ve raised atmospheric CO2 so much that the difference between pre-Industrial levels and the current concentration is the same as the difference between pre-Industrial levels and the last Ice Age. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that because of this, the average global temperature has gone up about one and a half degrees since the Industrial Revolution. And it will continue to rise as long as we continue to pump more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

A) I don't know about the other countries but the USA is

"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).
This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon
sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood
products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.
World Climate Report » Earth?s Carbon Sink Still Strong and Growing
http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

So you can understand.. The USA could produce 15% more CO2 and our forests,etc. would absorb it.
So the USA can't be put into the category of contributing to "Global warming" due to CO2!

B) Please explain how for over 100 years the base point for temperature readings has been the temperature reading stations around the world.. but not in 12.5% of the earth's land mass!

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

"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.

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) Are surface temperature records reliable?

In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.

Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming,"-- the cited cause:

manmade atmospheric pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective

 

[Politico]

When you're clueless simple thinga tend to confuse you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Science Proves Man-made Global Warming

"Before the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels were about 280 parts per million, which falls within the average range of an inter-Ice Age warm period. Now, though, because of the burning of fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2 is at 390 ppm. This is a very large change over a short period of time. What this means is that over the last 300 years, we’ve raised atmospheric CO2 so much that the difference between pre-Industrial levels and the current concentration is the same as the difference between pre-Industrial levels and the last Ice Age. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that because of this, the average global temperature has gone up about one and a half degrees since the Industrial Revolution. And it will continue to rise as long as we continue to pump more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

A) I don't know about the other countries but the USA is

"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).
This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon
sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood
products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.
World Climate Report » Earth?s Carbon Sink Still Strong and Growing
http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

So you can understand.. The USA could produce 15% more CO2 and our forests,etc. would absorb it.
So the USA can't be put into the category of contributing to "Global warming" due to CO2!

B) Please explain how for over 100 years the base point for temperature readings has been the temperature reading stations around the world.. but not in 12.5% of the earth's land mass!

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

"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.

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) Are surface temperature records reliable?

In the 1970s concerned environmentalists like Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado feared a return to another ice age due to manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun.

Since about 1940 the global climate did in fact appear to be cooling. Then a funny thing happened-- sometime in the late 1970s temperature declines slowed to a halt and ground-based recording stations during the 1980s and 1990s began reading small but steady increases in near-surface temperatures. Fears of "global cooling" then changed suddenly to "global warming,"-- the cited cause:

manmade atmospheric pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective

Total shit. Since 1979, we have had satellites, as well as ground stations, measuring the increase in temperatures. And an independent study by a skeptic, Muller of Berkeley, confirmed the accuracy of the present organizations involved in studying the temperature rise.

FAQ|Berkeley Earth

 

[jon_berzerk]

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.
According to The Economist, "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified." On face value, Hansen agrees the slowdown in global temperature rises can be seen as "good news".
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

By the way Hames Hansen has been the BIGGEST champion of Global Warming!!!

Hmmm... those of us who said the jury was still out on Global Warming... who were the brunt of idiotic comments, jeers as being anti-science... please
I'm not gloating but here is my little dance!!!

View attachment 25149

 

[zeke]

That would make most of the world's scientists in this field of study extremist nutters.

There is no science. It's all been corrupted by politics. You automatically assume that because one is a scientists that means they are unbiased.

By the way, there was a time when most of the world's scientists thought the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was shear lunacy.

You're a conspiracy theorist. You think 97% of the world's climate scientists are corrupt.

Not only that. He thinks those studies funded by the oil companies are unbiased as well?
LMAO.

SO my side gets 100 scientists to say warming is real and the oil companies get 2 sciesntists to say it is not, and somehow the 100 are wrong and the 2 are correct.
That could only make sense to a rethug.

 

[Freewill]

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.
According to The Economist, "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified." On face value, Hansen agrees the slowdown in global temperature rises can be seen as "good news".
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

By the way Hames Hansen has been the BIGGEST champion of Global Warming!!!

Hmmm... those of us who said the jury was still out on Global Warming... who were the brunt of idiotic comments, jeers as being anti-science... please
I'm not gloating but here is my little dance!!!

View attachment 25149

Yet another thread where MMGW myths are dealt yet another blow, but the bed wetters will cry foul or attack the messenger. For those of you who cling to Algore's Cult I have the solution to Global Warming, and how we can drastically reduce human production of CO2.

It will have to be a well coordinated effort undertaken by everyone who believes human beings are causing the earth to heat up and are dedicated to CO2 reduction. It will require a minimal initial expense, but some significant labor costs in the end.

I can absolutely guarantee complete success on April 21st. Not only will the world be a cooler place, the collective intelligence of mankind will increase at least %25.

How about this, just ban all private jet travel? I am thinking you should remove the part of your post about the plastic bag.

 

[Freewill]

There is no science. It's all been corrupted by politics. You automatically assume that because one is a scientists that means they are unbiased.

By the way, there was a time when most of the world's scientists thought the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was shear lunacy.

You're a conspiracy theorist. You think 97% of the world's climate scientists are corrupt.

Not only that. He thinks those studies funded by the oil companies are unbiased as well?
LMAO.

SO my side gets 100 scientists to say warming is real and the oil companies get 2 sciesntists to say it is not, and somehow the 100 are wrong and the 2 are correct.
That could only make sense to a rethug.

So the 100 are paid by the government to make their claims and the 2 are paid for by the oil companies, seems to me that all could or should be considered suspect. Especially the 100 considering that is the only way they make money. Also the 2 would be putting their profession on the line by lying, if they are.

 

[Freewill]

Global warming at a standstill, new Met Office figures show

The warming is imposed on the natural cycles, so one would expect times when there is a pause, or even a downturn. And one can see it here;

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

I see, just not predicted ones by the computer models. Just ones explained away after the fact.

 

[konradv]

Global warming at a standstill, new Met Office figures show

The warming is imposed on the natural cycles, so one would expect times when there is a pause, or even a downturn. And one can see it here;

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

I see, just not predicted ones by the computer models. Just ones explained away after the fact.

It's the deniers that always say natural cycles are being ignored, but when they aren't they complain about that too. It just proves their position is all about politics and the science is just a talking point. Hypocrites!

 

[Old Rocks]

You're a conspiracy theorist. You think 97% of the world's climate scientists are corrupt.

Not only that. He thinks those studies funded by the oil companies are unbiased as well?
LMAO.

SO my side gets 100 scientists to say warming is real and the oil companies get 2 sciesntists to say it is not, and somehow the 100 are wrong and the 2 are correct.
That could only make sense to a rethug.

So the 100 are paid by the government to make their claims and the 2 are paid for by the oil companies, seems to me that all could or should be considered suspect. Especially the 100 considering that is the only way they make money. Also the 2 would be putting their profession on the line by lying, if they are.

So you are totally ignorant of how scientific studies are done. Typical of a willfully ignorant 'Conservative'.

The science behind AGW is rock solid. In fact, so rock solid that the fruitloops here go for making personal attacks on the scientists, rather than trying to disprove the science. CH4, CO2, and water vapor absorb outgoing infrared. That heat is added to the atmosphere or re-emitted to warm the ground.

As for that posters comment about the plastic bags, let it stand. It shows the mindset of typical 'Conservatives'.

 

[ba1614]

I keep eagerly awaiting that Florida weather in January they keep promising me.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global warming at a standstill, new Met Office figures show

The warming is imposed on the natural cycles, so one would expect times when there is a pause, or even a downturn. And one can see it here;

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

I see, just not predicted ones by the computer models. Just ones explained away after the fact.

Explain away the very rapid melting of the Arctic Sea Ice. The recession of the glaciers worldwide. The weather extremes that have started costing us so much in the grocery stores. The are real time and readily observable consequences of the present warming.

Yes, the computer models have been quite inaccurate. They failed to predict the Arctic Sea Ice melt. We are now where the models had us in 2080. They failed to predict the present weather extremes, we were not supposed to see these effects until 2050. And they failed to predict the vast amount of aerosols that India and China are putting out. Or the decline in the solar TSI. All of these things should have led to a cooling, not just a pause in the upward climb of temperatures.

 

[Old Rocks]

I keep eagerly awaiting that Florida weather in January they keep promising me.

It will be a while, but when you get it, you won't be happy about what comes with it.

 

[yidnar]

why is it cooler now than when the dinosaurs lived ??

 

[Freewill]

The warming is imposed on the natural cycles, so one would expect times when there is a pause, or even a downturn. And one can see it here;

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

I see, just not predicted ones by the computer models. Just ones explained away after the fact.

Explain away the very rapid melting of the Arctic Sea Ice. The recession of the glaciers worldwide. The weather extremes that have started costing us so much in the grocery stores. The are real time and readily observable consequences of the present warming.

Yes, the computer models have been quite inaccurate. They failed to predict the Arctic Sea Ice melt. We are now where the models had us in 2080. They failed to predict the present weather extremes, we were not supposed to see these effects until 2050. And they failed to predict the vast amount of aerosols that India and China are putting out. Or the decline in the solar TSI. All of these things should have led to a cooling, not just a pause in the upward climb of temperatures.

Fear not:

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Over the 2012 to 2013 winter season, sea ice extent grew a record 11.72 million square kilometers (4.53 million square miles). The record growth was primarily a result of the record low minimum last September, leaving a greater extent of ocean surface uncovered in ice to re-freeze this winter. This seasonal ice gain is 645,000 square kilometers (249,000 square miles) higher than the previous record (2007 to 2008) and 2.63 million square kilometer (1.02 million square miles) higher than the 1979 to 2000 average. Last autumn’s record low and this winter’s record ice growth indicate a more pronounced seasonal cycle in Arctic sea ice and the increasing dominance of first-year ice in the Arctic.


Fear not, climate extremes:

Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog : Is the U.S. climate getting more extreme? | Weather Underground

 

[peach174]

First there was a report that it has been 10 years now we have one that says we have a 20 year hiatus.

Yet they are all ignoring that all of the planets in our Solar system, climates are changing.

Man is not causing our climate change from pollution.

Russian Scientists say planets are changing

Solar System Climate Change | Wake Up World

NASA and Russia are telling us, the whole solar system is changing.

 

[bripat9643]

Global warming at a standstill, new Met Office figures show

The warming is imposed on the natural cycles, so one would expect times when there is a pause, or even a downturn. And one can see it here;

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

I see, just not predicted ones by the computer models. Just ones explained away after the fact.

He says one should expect that, but none of the AGW priesthood expected it. They always expect things after the facts differ from what they originally expected.