Global warming.

[BigMatt]

Before you feverishly google for your next smoking gun, give it a read first. In addition, I thought you have been researching this for decades? Decades of research has only brought you to anecdotal evidence? These are common views that have been debunked long ago but remain on climate change denial blogs in bullet point list form. It is amazing they continue to be trotted out as if they are iron clad evidence.

You are right, those articles were just pulled up from Google to back up the poster ahead of me and I didn't read through the one about vineyards in England. My years (not decades) of hearing the arguments on both sides of the subject did not just give anecdotal evidence, but real arguments some of which I did post previously in this conversation, but they were ignored too.

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming – Telegraph Blogs

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Forbes

Oops! Reducing CO2 won’t stop global warming after all, says U.N. - Orange Punch : The Orange County Register

Al Gore Explains 'Snowmageddon' | Fox News

Global Warming & Climate Change in Perspective: CO2, Scientific Consensus, and Climate Models | Capitalism Magazine

 

[level.eleven]

Matt, I am not going to respond to every article from frantic google searches. Particularly articles that end with "-gate" or "-geddon". You are not going to get science in articles like that. You are going to get ideology. Go to the source. Read the publications. Read the journals. There are great blogs out there maintained by actual scientists, climatologists. Don't rely on a blogger for the local newpaper or a weekly financial magazine for analysis.

An easy example of this is the Forbes link you posted. A simple search of the publication reveals this.

Remote Sensing | Free Full-Text | Taking Responsibility on Publishing the Controversial Paper

The research was pulled because it was a wildly inaccurate model. The editor-in-chief of the journal resigned in shame. His resignation actually mentions the gross exaggerations and irresponsability of the Forbes blogger. Stick to science. And most importantly, again I remind you, read your sources. It is always the first step.

 

[smokingman]

Global Warming stopped 16 years ago.With the science to back it up.
British MET office report.
"The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures."

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.


Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.

Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?
You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.

From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.

This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.


But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.

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


Data link at the source,and more information.
Not many politicians are going to like this rofl(or people who where taught since grade school humans caused global warming from CO2 emissions).

 

[level.eleven]

Oh, the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is a supermarket tabloid.

Why the Mail on Sunday was wrong to claim global warming has stopped | Environment | guardian.co.uk

MET Office sets the record straight. Don't get your science from supermarket tabloids.

Some comic relief.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI[/ame]

 

[smokingman]

Oh, the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is a supermarket tabloid.

Why the Mail on Sunday was wrong to claim global warming has stopped | Environment | guardian.co.uk

MET Office sets the record straight. Don't get your science from supermarket tabloids.

Some comic relief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

Look at the data,not the article.
Ambient air temperature has not increased in 16 years.

From your article "The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely."
Look at the official data.Screw what either side is saying.
The MET even released a chart with land,sea,deep sea,and air temperature readings since 1880.It is in your article.How can you look at that data and say we are doomed from global warming when it shows the opposite?
The chart.

and the funniest point in your article is the last line.

"Carbon pricing will result in a net benefit the economy as compared to doing nothing and trying to adapt to the consequences."

 

[level.eleven]

Uhhh, that is a chart concerning internal variability.

It's internal variability

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Thanks for the data and the article links, Smokingman. Level.eleven is starting to remind me of that one Honda commercial where the couple is comparing Brand X to the Honda and no matter what point they make, the Brand X salesman counters with "Ehhhhhhh. . ."

 

[level.eleven]

Thanks for the data and the article links, Smokingman. Level.eleven is starting to remind me of that one Honda commercial where the couple is comparing Brand X to the Honda and no matter what point they make, the Brand X salesman counters with "Ehhhhhhh. . ."

Did you also read what the actual scientists had to say? Or are you sticking with the supermarket tabloid? The folks who actually collected the data, responded to the tabloid. Did you read that?

I know no one reads the links. It is obvious. A graph was posted that measured internal variability of modeling but was somehow thought to be a global temperature graph. Perhaps INGO isn't a good place for scientific discussion. Perhaps Santorum was correct.

 

[level.eleven]

Met Office response.

Interesting what the tabloid blogger decided to leave out.

Met Office in the Media: 14 October 2012 « Met Office News Blog

No one will read it, but what the hell.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The "scientists" who "collected" the data systematically excluded data points which didn't support their theories, suppressed other research papers that disagreed with them, and "adjusted" data where it suited them. I have no faith in their results, and, apparently neither do other climate scientists.

 

[level.eleven]

The "scientists" who "collected" the data systematically excluded data points which didn't support their theories, suppressed other research papers that disagreed with them, and "adjusted" data where it suited them. I have no faith in their results, and, apparently neither do other climate scientists.

So the Mail article is incorrect as well? I don't understand this position.

The tabloid blogger wildly misrepresented the data and jumped to even wilder conclusions. The scientists who conducted the research responded. Furthermore, you came to this conclusion by reading the research, correct? Am I having a discussion with someone who has their fingers stuck in their ears? That is fine, I guess. If you want to get your science from the National Enquirer, no one can stop you. Just don't expect that opinion to be met with respect in the scientific community. Particularly when you put forth no effort to further your knowledge on the subject.

Do you realize the graph posted by smokingman supports my position?

This research isn't even newsworthy. Only two news organizations even bothered to report. The tabloid, DM and Fox News that reprinted the blog post.

 

[VidGuy]

I have been a skeptic of global warming for a long time, but after doing a lot of reading, and hearing about actual data from people in the field, it's impossible to deny that we are in a warming trend.

Now, we can debate the cause (anthropological or natural) but the result is pretty conclusive. Pollutants DO contribute to the warming, but it's unknown just how much, and how much can be attributed to our continued emergence from the last Ice Age.

 

[CarmelHP]

I have been a skeptic of global warming for a long time, but after doing a lot of reading, and hearing about actual data from people in the field, it's impossible to deny that we are in a warming trend.

Now, we can debate the cause (anthropological or natural) but the result is pretty conclusive. Pollutants DO contribute to the warming, but it's unknown just how much, and how much can be attributed to our continued emergence from the last Ice Age.

Of course, I can't tell what is being argued. There has been a warming trend, which may or may not continue, and which may be caused by man's activities or which may be due to solar activity over 10,000 years cycles or maybe something else altogether. My beef is with so-called scientists who say that there is a warming trend and that we must turn over money and power or we're all going to die.

 

[level.eleven]

Even the scientists used in the Mail article say they were misrepresented.

I have no idea where the ‘deeply flawed’ came from, I did not use these words in any context that Rose should be quoted (perhaps I used them somewhere on my blog?) Also, I agree that 16 years is too short, given the timescales of the PDO and AMO, to separate out natural versus anthropogenic variability (but this cuts both ways: the warming period between 1980 and 1998 was arguably amped by the PDO and AMO).

‘Pause’ discussion thread | Climate Etc.

Does everyone understand the concept here? Internal variability vs. noise in modeling?

Honestly folks, don't fall for tabloid science.

 

[VidGuy]

A good illustration of the effects of the warming trend on polar sea ice:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaKqhRTqSlg[/ame]

I have no problem with urging people to conserve energy. In fact, I try to conserve as much as possible, but mainly because I'm cheap, not because I'm conscientious. But I draw the line at people who want to wreck our economy by over-regulation, when China and India are polluting WAY more then we ever have, and have no plans to stop.

 

[Roadie]

Of course, I can't tell what is being argued. There has been a warming trend, which may or may not continue, and which may be caused by man's activities or which may be due to solar activity over 10,000 years cycles or maybe something else altogether. My beef is with so-called scientists who say that there is a warming trend and that we must turn over money and power or we're all going to die.

Exactly..

Climate changes, we know this. It changed before man could have had any affect on it..

"Global Warming" now, "Global Cooling" 3 years ago.. both were supposedly man made, so, who do we believe?

 

[EvilBlackGun]

Interesting phenomenon ...

.... in the attempts and failures / successes of men to find the North West Passage, over the North Pole from one ocean to the other (Atlantic & Pacific.) Their progress was always impeded by the ice, of course. But some years / decades were warmer than others, and the navigators got further and further across, and more and more data were accumulated. The first ship through sailed from the Bering Sea to Greenland in an unsuspecting move, but all hands of the death ship had starved to death and froze. The progress these mariners made exactly patterns the eras of warming and cooling over all the earth. All of these incidents happened even before the use of coal-fire boilers or other anti-green methods. (Source: Wiki ) Therefore man cannot be blamed for that pollutiion. Except for political gain. EBG

30 years ago they were yelling global cooling and predicting the next ice age was upon us. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

If this Polar Ice all melts ...

.... can anyone predict how much the oceans of the world will rise ??? (TQ) EBG

A good illustration of the effects of the warming trend on polar sea ice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaKqhRTqSlg

I have no problem with urging people to conserve energy. In fact, I try to conserve as much as possible, but mainly because I'm cheap, not because I'm conscientious. But I draw the line at people who want to wreck our economy by over-regulation, when China and India are polluting WAY more then we ever have, and have no plans to stop.

 

[Project972]

ice much thicker this year in north pole.

 

[EvilBlackGun]

I don't know who you all are, but ....

.... I can say the same thing about many of the men and women I have brushed ideas with on this site. Fare Thee Well From Here On, Friends. EBG

Michael Crichton was, in addition to being a wonderful writer, an erudite and perceptive individual. I have much respect for his thoughts and the world was diminished by his passing in more than one way.