Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago - Met Office

[Rocky7]

avb3, this is for you:

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
.........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-prove-it.html

'Yer welcome.

[FishingMOM]

Finally - now hopefully global warming worry warts can relax.
But alas we all know they will say that science is wrong.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

avb3, this is for you:

The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.

The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
.........

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-prove-it.html

'Yer welcome.

Thanks.

Now, want the rest of the story?

Here is what the Met Office says:

It is the second article Mr Rose has written which contains some misleading information, after he wrote an article earlier this year on the same theme – you see our response to that one here.

Full Met Office response is here.

Rose was cherry picking. I found this interesting climate calculator. Plug in the years you're interested in, and see the variability. For fun, put in the dates of 1964 to 1977, and choose the HADCRUT 4 data set.

The climate is cooling! OK, now, not so fast. Put in 1964-2012.

Proof of what cherry picking data points does.

Rose has no credibility. Rutherford got his panties in a knot yesterday on this also. Bet he won't talk about the Met Office response today... he hasn't so far.

[surface2feather]

I think "global warming" started when some bean counter decided we needed to pay more for fuel... How would people ever accept paying 1.20/litre for fuel otherwise?
Just comes down to a bunch of crooks making people feel responsible for warming the earth by burning fossil fuels... Not like the planet has been warming and cooling by itself for millions of years...
Just my opinion....

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by avb3

Thanks.

Now, want the rest of the story?....

Rose was cherry picking. I found this....

Temperature is a fact, not a fruit.

It's ok. I know it will take a while for some to climb down from that far up.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Temperature is a fact, not a fruit.

It's ok. I know it will take a while for some to climb down from that far up.

So, does that mean you agree that Rose wrote a misleading article, as the Met Office clearly says?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Thanks.

Now, want the rest of the story?

Here is what the Met Office says:



Full Met Office response is here.

Rose was cherry picking. I found this interesting climate calculator. Plug in the years you're interested in, and see the variability. For fun, put in the dates of 1964 to 1977, and choose the HADCRUT 4 data set.

The climate is cooling! OK, now, not so fast. Put in 1964-2012.

Proof of what cherry picking data points does.

Rose has no credibility. Rutherford got his panties in a knot yesterday on this also. Bet he won't talk about the Met Office response today... he hasn't so far.

Met is well known for cherry picking data...picking and chosing only tree core data that supports their hypothesis for human caused global warming for instance.

So the Met releases information...but it is contrary to your thinking...so hey...let's just discount it.

In the same breath you believe everything the Met says that is only vetted by the human caused global warming believers.

Interesting

Rocky...stop adding facts to the debate...this is an emotional topic for believers.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Met is well known for cherry picking data...picking and chosing only tree core data that supports their hypothesis for human caused global warming for instance.

So the Met releases information...but it is contrary to your thinking...so hey...let's just discount it.

In the same breath you believe everything the Met says that is only vetted by the human caused global warming believers.

Interesting

Rocky...stop adding facts to the debate...this is an emotional topic for believers.

Perhaps if you had looked at the calculator, you would see that it draws data points from numerous sources, the Met Office being one of them.

Go ahead, try it for your favorite date ranges... you too can get results you want, but if you include all date ranges, the results are clear.

[rugatika]

plugged the numbers in for the dates I wanted....

global_temp2.jpg





Looks like things are going exactly as they have been for hundreds of thousands of years. Notice what happens next? Do you really think we need to be worried about a little bit of warming right now? (I should add, the peak we are at right now, isn't even as warm as some of the previous peaks...before man was driving around on the planet.)


We are about to plunge into a 100,000 year long ice age and you are worried about the Earth being a quarter of a degree warmer than it was 40 years ago? Do you have panic attacks about a bug on your headlight while driving around without any oil in your car?
In fact, anyone with half a brain that really believed CO2 had any sort of a significant effect on warming should be doing some hardcore advocating of increased atmospheric CO2 right about now.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rugatika

plugged the numbers in for the dates I wanted....

Attachment 60542





Looks like things are going exactly as they have been for hundreds of thousands of years. Notice what happens next? Do you really think we need to be worried about a little bit of warming right now? (I should add, the peak we are at right now, isn't even as warm as some of the previous peaks...before man was driving around on the planet.)


We are about to plunge into a 100,000 year long ice age and you are worried about the Earth being a quarter of a degree warmer than it was 40 years ago? Do you have panic attacks about a bug on your headlight while driving around without any oil in your car?
In fact, anyone with half a brain that really believed CO2 had any sort of a significant effect on warming should be doing some hardcore advocating of increased atmospheric CO2 right about now.

Nice try, except the calculator goes back to 1880. Let's use some intellectual reality here.

Besides, you very well know that for the first time ever CO2 is LEADING temperature rise, not trailing in your chart's case. And the sun has been cooling for 30 years, which means we should have a cooling trend. We are not.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

Nice try, except the calculator goes back to 1880. Let's use some intellectual reality here.

Besides, you very well know that for the first time ever CO2 is LEADING temperature rise, not trailing in your chart's case. And the sun has been cooling for 30 years, which means we should have a cooling trend. We are not.

Exactly my point. You talk about cherry picking data, but only want us to look back to 1880. Basically 130 years of data, on any sort of a climatological time scale...that's called weather. Yet when presented with a graph that clearly shows we are nearing the end of an interglacial, you completely ignore the significance of it. You're chasing a rolling penny on a freeway at rush hour.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Exactly my point. You talk about cherry picking data, but only want us to look back to 1880. Basically 130 years of data, on any sort of a climatological time scale...that's called weather. Yet when presented with a graph that clearly shows we are nearing the end of an interglacial, you completely ignore the significance of it. You're chasing a rolling penny on a freeway at rush hour.

The reason the charts go back to the 1880's is that is when direct, and accurate, and recorded information was available. Prior to 1850's, everything is indicative and indirect information, and a preponderance of that paints the picture.

Think of the prior information like a Monet. Individual paint points are murky, put it all together, and you have a masterpiece.

[ESOXangler]

Originally Posted by avb3

The reason the charts go back to the 1880's is that is when direct, and accurate, and recorded information was available. Prior to 1850's, everything is indicative and indirect information, and a preponderance of that paints the picture.

Think of the prior information like a Monet. Individual paint points are murky, put it all together, and you have a masterpiece.

Rugatika has my vote, now lets go kill some wolverines and polar bears and get ready for the iceage.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

The reason the charts go back to the 1880's is that is when direct, and accurate, and recorded information was available. Prior to 1850's, everything is indicative and indirect information, and a preponderance of that paints the picture.

Think of the prior information like a Monet. Individual paint points are murky, put it all together, and you have a masterpiece.

OK. Type in 2010 to 2012. Very clearly we have a cooling trend. The Earth is definitely cooling. In the face of increasing CO2, the earth is cooling. How do you explain that??

Or even go back to 2002. A decade of YOUR data source shows a slight decrease in temperature. A whole decade without any increase of temperature, yet increasing CO2. Clearly, increases in atmospheric CO2 have insignificant effects on global temperatures.

Or perhaps you would now like to start claiming that increasing CO2 levels cause global cooling?

Are you now going to argue with science?


ESOX...we will need polar bears in the future for transportation. Polar bear saddle making will become a giant industry.

[Blake]

So does this mean Al Gore's going to have to get a new job?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rugatika

OK. Type in 2010 to 2012. Very clearly we have a cooling trend. The Earth is definitely cooling. In the face of increasing CO2, the earth is cooling. How do you explain that??

Or even go back to 2002. A decade of YOUR data source shows a slight decrease in temperature. A whole decade without any increase of temperature, yet increasing CO2. Clearly, increases in atmospheric CO2 have insignificant effects on global temperatures.

Or perhaps you would now like to start claiming that increasing CO2 levels cause global cooling?

Are you now going to argue with science?


ESOX...we will need polar bears in the future for transportation. Polar bear saddle making will become a giant industry.

Fun to play around with it isn't it?

So, what is your conclusion of the long term trend?

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

Fun to play around with it isn't it?

So, what is your conclusion of the long term trend?

Long term trend is a mile of ice coming our way. Don't sell your sled.

So if I get what you are saying. 2 years is too short of a time period, 10 years is too short of a time period, 5000 years is too long, as is 450,000 years to see a trend, but 130 years is just right? Even you can surely see the fault in that logic.

So what is your conclusion about 10 years without any increase in temperature in the face of rising CO2 levels??

[Rocky7]

avb3,

I hear ice cracking.

Look down.

[cujo1969]

I think the climate is definetly warming but dont think humans have much effect on it. On the farm we seed earlier then before grow longer season crops. Seems the weather is more severe as in storms.

[dale7637]

Why even argue about it?
Everybody is right on this one, in their own eyes.

[pophouseman]

..........where did he go........?

[trooper]

Gone to recheck his data... or maybe call Dr. Suzuki for advice??

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by cujo1969

I think the climate is definetly warming but dont think humans have much effect on it. On the farm we seed earlier then before grow longer season crops. Seems the weather is more severe as in storms.

Most of the perception on weather related severity is due to increasing human populations, poor land management and excessive dwelling by media bored with politics.

There has been many papers sold because of global warming hysteria...but it has been slowing hense the media is moving on.

Global media and the internet pounds us with stories of floods and storm that 15 years ago rarely made the news when it happened and 30 years ago never made the news.

Still we came out of an ice age so the fact is the Earth has warmed...where it goes from now needs more data than what avb3 is trying to postulate as valid.

[avb3]

Discovery News does a good job of debunking the Mail's tabloid "exposure". They make some of the same points I made earlier.

Mind you, they report science, not tabloid junk.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/no-g...ed-121017.html

[rugatika]

So if I get what you are saying. 2 years is too short of a time period, 10 years is too short of a time period, 5000 years is too long, as is 450,000 years to see a trend, but 130 years is just right? Even you can surely see the fault in that logic.

So what is your conclusion about 10 years without any increase in temperature in the face of rising CO2 levels??

Anyone spent any time outside say over the past 20 or 30 years or so? From my anecdotal observations, we live in a warmer clime and are begining to see animals and insects and plants we've never seen before but I guess if there is a study that says it ain't so....well.........Sometimes it pays to look around.

[Walleyes]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Anyone spent any time outside say over the past 20 or 30 years or so? From my anecdotal observations, we live in a warmer clime and are begining to see animals and insects and plants we've never seen before but I guess if there is a study that says it ain't so....well.........Sometimes it pays to look around.

Most definetly agreed. I don't know if its caused by humans or if its just a natural trend but a person would have to be pretty blind not to see that over the last 15 - 20 years there has been a definate pattern to the warmer weather. Look at our winters in the north, our work season is getting shorter and shorter. Our lakes are getting dryer by the year. 20 years ago it was common to have heavy frosts by the middle of Sept I mean heavy to the point the mud ruts would be frozen solid in the morning, now its very rare to have frosts like that by the first or second week of Oct.

But one would actualy have to spend some time outside more than once a month twice a year to see this,, lol..

[greylynx]

Old greylynx is getting prepared for this global cooling.

One big problem. I can't find any place to purchase the traditional Stanfields trap door full body underwear.

Chapman Brothers closed years ago, The Army and Navy does not have any.

What about the Progress Store in Lethbridge? Is that still open?

I should have saw this coming and stocked up.

[Walleyes]

Originally Posted by greylynx

Old greylynx is getting prepared for this global cooling.

One big problem. I can't find any place to purchase the traditional Stanfields trap door full body underwear.

Chapman Brothers closed years ago, The Army and Navy does not have any.

What about the Progress Store in Lethbridge? Is that still open?

I should have saw this coming and stocked up.

I got a couple slighty used pairs for you,, maybe we can do a swap of some sort,, no ???

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by Walleyes

I got a couple slighty used pairs for you,, maybe we can do a swap of some sort,, no ???

How bad are the brown burn stains in the trap door?