CONFIRMED: Global Warming 'Ended 15 Years Ago'

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
....

the funny part ?

no mention of what has happened from about 1875 to 1990

congratulations, the oil guys got you


and I'm sure there is no bias in the data, and the stations are all high quality, right ?

you don't expect me to just accept the data now, do you ?

lol

Maybe you will believe something more powerful than you and your AGW movement?... The Sun?...

The Sun's activity has/had been at the highest in more than 1,500 years for the last at least 100 years...

But of course, your kind are not going to believe the Sun... "How can that be possible, we the AGW bunch are more powerful than the Sun, the Earth, nature, the Solar System and the entire galaxy"...

March 20, 2003 (date of web publication)

NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate


Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.
...

www.nasa.gov...

That study ended in 2002, but the Sun itself has shown to have increased in activity even after 2002.

It "WAS" believed that the Sun's activity had stopped increasing around the 1970s, but this study shows the contrary, and Wilson is the Principal Investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments.

Past studies had shown that the Sun's activity had increased for around 60 years until around the 70s, although imo it has been longer than that because the magnetic intensity of the Sun has been increasing since the 1900s according to other research, and now we know that trend has continued to rise after the 1970s despite the lies and deceipt by the AGW crowd.

If global warming is such a big hoax,

Then tell me why it's going to be 70 degrees here in North Carolina, tomorrow, in the middle of WINTER!

Since I've moved here 6 years ago, I've had to shovel snow at LEAST a couple of times a year by now...

Originally posted by IrVulture
If global warming is such a big hoax,

Then tell me why it's going to be 70 degrees here in North Carolina, tomorrow, in the middle of WINTER!

Since I've moved here 6 years ago, I've had to shovel snow at LEAST a couple of times a year by now...

It's called CLIMATE CHANGE...

Perhaps you haven't noticed but the climate has been FLUCTUATING... It hasn't been "the warmest" all this time, some years have been warmer, others have been cooler...

I find it ironic how people like you forget all the record lows WORLDWIDE that have been occurring...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

It's called CLIMATE CHANGE...

Perhaps you haven't noticed but the climate has been FLUCTUATING... It hasn't been "the warmest" all this time, some years have been warmer, others have been cooler...

I find it ironic how people like you forget all the record lows WORLDWIDE that have been occurring...

Global warming includes unusual fluctuations in temperatures. Which can either be high or low extremes. The one constant is that the average global temperature is rising.

Wow... massive fail from the OP. Thinking Daily Mail was a credible source.
And to then go on and be so cocky about it... shame on you.

There should be a way of removing stars and flags from people found out to be spouting rubbish.

Originally posted by Kaploink

Global warming includes unusual fluctuations in temperatures. Which can either be high or low extremes. The one constant is that the average global temperature is rising.

No... Warming is WARMING, it doesn't mean fluctuation and it has no other meaning no matter what the AGW crowd tries to claim...

Warming does not mean cooling anywhere on Earth, so you better do better than that if you want to keep defending that dead ideology.

Originally posted by FAQAmerica
Wow... massive fail from the OP. Thinking Daily Mail was a credible source.
And to then go on and be so cocky about it... shame on you.

There should be a way of removing stars and flags from people found out to be spouting rubbish.

There should be a way to removing posts and members who just troll because they want to and don't give any real arguments to defend their position.

OK...here comes reality and every one of these next statements can be confirmed.

1. The Russians, Canadians, U.S...and a host of other countries are now fighting over Drilling Rights as well as Shipping lanes to the very soon all liquid water Northern Former Ice Cap.

2. U.S. Military has been...for years...planning for response teams due to massive storms created by Global Warming.

3. Global Warming can melt enough Fresh Water to mix with Salinated water to stop the Gulf Stream and create an ICE AGE...it has happened many times before.

4. Many Pacific Island Nations are planning evacuation as within a few years...2 to 5...they will be underwater.

5. CO2 is not the biggest problem in Global Warming...it is the Methane that is now defrosting from Alaskan and Siberian Lake systems and has a greater effect on Global Warming. Split Infinity

BTW, I don't believe a word the Met Office has to say.

They have been found to lie in the past about Climate Change and they will keep lying.

BTW, you guys do know even the BBC broke their contract with the Met Office because they have failed to predict cold events due to their "warming bias"?...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BTW, I don't believe a word the Met Office has to say.

They have been found to lie in the past about Climate Change and they will keep lying.

BTW, you guys do know even the BBC broke their contract with the Met Office because they have failed to predict cold events due to their "warming bias"?...

edit on 30-1-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

Really? When?
Link to a story saying otherwise

The arrogance of humans never ceases to amaze me. You tiny little insignificant people are not making any impact on the entire globe. Locally yes, we have can have a negative impact that creates hazardous living conditions, but globally? No freakin way. This earth has taken hit after hit after hit. If giant asteroids, huge supervolcanoic eruptions, and massive earthquakes couldn't destroy her, wth makes you people think that we can have any real major impact. Why do you think so many geologists don't agree with GW? They can see the evidence of natural occurring cycles and mass extinctions that have nothing to do with humans.
Wake up folks, this girl will do what ever she wants when she wants and there is no tax big enough to stop her. The climate doesn't work like central heat and air, you can't pay more or less money to make the temperature go up or down. This earth we were given to inhabit will survive with or without us. So get over yourselves.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
What I do expect is this summer or the next, we will get the "mother of all red tides" -- and because it is so massive an area of oxygen depletion, there won't be enough ecosystem left in the Gulf for it to recover.

Well I can tell you this, we certainly got a hefty red tide this past summer. We all expected it, red tides are a biological response to stuff like oil spills; we get some red tide every year and we pay attention to information on spills caused by humans or plumes from natural forces that release junk into the Gulf so that we can know what to expect; gotta keep the kiddies and the doggies out of the water some summers.

I know a lot of people that complain about the red tide and have a "somebody outta do somethin' about it" attitude towards it. Personally I think it is a good thing, life on this planet would have been permanently extinct a long, long time ago without something like the red tide to break down dangerous compounds released into the water by natural forces, and now human forces.

However I do understand that it can swell to a point where there is no return if there is too much food for it....but I'm betting life would find a way to survive it. To me, the idea that we could "destroy the earth" is ludicrous, we couldn't even wipe out the biosphere, much less the earth. Can we change it, or damage it, or alter it? Yes. Do our actions have an effect? Yes. How could they not? In any system, everything is affected by everything else, to some degree. How much of an effect do our actions have in the big scheme of things? I don't know. Sometimes I wonder about it, in terms of it being a "chaos" system...while we're all running around going "omg!!" and trying to reduce our carbon output, a hotdog vendor steps on a cockroach in Central Park, and that is what begins a cascade of events that causes the next great Extinction event. Who knows?
One thing is for sure: We Cannot Destroy The Planet. We are nowhere near awesome enough(yet.) We couldn't even totally destroy the biosphere; even if we set off all our nukes all at once and spread them out evenly over the globe, some stuff would survive, and eventually the earth would be green again(although it might be purple, or something else). And history shows that Nature does not need our help to destroy ecosystems. 99.99999999% of all species of life on earth are now extinct, thanks to sweet old Mother Nature. Hey, maybe we're just her latest scheme to cause worldwide death.

I think humans are a part of this ecosystem and we should respect that. But we should also try to be aware that we are not the Force on this planet. Our actions have an effect and we shouldn't pretend they don't, but I'm willing to bet that most of our efforts will continue to go towards keeping Nature from killing us and the ecosystems we love, as it has been for most of human history, rather than saving Nature from ourselves.

I just wanted to post a comment from that very page:
metofficenews.wordpress.com...

What’s the matter with your command of the English language? There is a difference between warm (values) and warming (a trend). The last 10 years may have been warm, but there has been no warming trend. That is what people are talking about all over the world. No warming for 15 years. That’s accurate – until you produce HadCrut v4 with its new Arctic stations (no cherrypicking there then).

As for your models saying CO2 trumps the Sun, well, we’ll see. Your models and predictions so far have a batting average of 0.

Point is, massage the data to your own liking, and you can say whatever you want. Especially when there is money involved.

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Tsurugi

 

Well clearly the "journalist" (aka fiction writer) at the Daily Mail fell for all the global catastrophist theories in the 70s - which, oddly, are still being circulated by some of the same people today (like Nigel Calder) even though there is more evidence the Moon is really a giant marshmallow. And inhabited by 20ft tall sentient snails.

Ok, seriously, I draw the line at "sentient" snails. Marshmallow moon, cool. 20ft tall snails, fine. But sentient???

You insult my intelligence, sir. Or rather, you would be insulting my intelligence, had I not misplaced it some time ago, due to circumstances beyond my control. I demand an apology or I shall be forced to pelt you mercilessly with gobs of yellow gummy worms.

Originally posted by minor007

Really? When?
Link to a story saying otherwise

Wow, well, it goes to show how deep in bed the BBC is with the warming bias...

BBC may dump Met office after complaints about 'BBQ summer' and 'mild winter' predictions
By David Wilkes

Last updated at 10:01 AM on 18th January 2010

The Met Office may be dropped by the BBC following complaints about its inaccurate weather forecasts.
The state-owned forecaster has recently been criticised for predicting it would be a 'mild' winter when we have just shivered in the biggest deep freeze for 30 years. And last year it infamously predicted a 'barbecue summer'.
The blunders could not have come at a worse time for the Met Office, which has provided forecasts for the BBC for nearly 90 years, as its contract with the broadcaster expires in April.
...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

The Big Question: Should the BBC drop the Met Office as its official weather forecaster?

Why are we asking this now?

Rather than renewing its current weather forecasting contract with the Met Office automatically, when it expires in April, the BBC is putting it out to tender – for the first time since 1922, when national broadcaster and national forecaster first became partners. No one on either side says how much the contract is worth.
...

www.independent.co.uk...

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Anyone care to argue with

30,000 measuring stations

worth of data?

Cause you're going to need 31,000 reasons to even get me to flinch.

Here is over 200 thousand reasons.....

Most Americans are unaware that the National Academy of Sciences, known for its cautious and even-handed reviews of the state of science, is firmly on board with climate change. It has been for years.

Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy, paraphrased its most recent report on the subject.

"The consensus statement is that climate changes are being observed, are certainly real, they seem to be increasing, and that humans are mostly likely the cause of all or most of these changes," he said.

That's not just the view of the U.S. National Academies. There's also a consensus statement from the presidents of science academies from around the world, including the academies of China, the United Kingdom, India, Japan, Russia, France, Brazil, the list goes on.

NPR

American Geophysical Union Source (over 50,000 members)

the American Physical Society Source (members 50,055)

the National Academy of Sciences Source

the American Meteorological Society Source (more than 14,000 members)

the American Association for the Advancement of Science Source (126,995 members)

“There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.”

Tomorrow the journal Science publishes a remarkable Lead Letter supporting the accuracy of climate science.

The must-read statement, “Climate Change and the Integrity of Science,” is signed by 255 of the world’s leading scientists.

It begins: We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular.
The lead signer, Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick, notes in a HuffPost piece: It is hard to get 255 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to agree on pretty much anything, making the import of this letter even more substantial.

The letter underscores our deep understanding of human-caused climate change and helps illuminate how science works. It deserves to be widely read in its entirety:

Source
So, are all these scientists really wrong?

Originally posted by TrueAmericanWell I for one feel glad that I never bought into the Global Warming hoax

How is/was it a hoax? Lets look at the source you provided....

It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Hmmm so this confirms that there WAS a raising trend. That means that the earth WAS warming. But seems to have stalled sense 1997. So, there was/is no "hoax".

Also lets consider this...

Just because the global mean surface temp has leveled off for the past 14 years doesn't mean the the average trend is doing the same. Please look at the graphs in this link here and you will see that while there are periods spanning many years that temperatures have even actually gone DOWN, the over all trend is that the temp is rising.
LOOK HERE

I mean you could in essence judge by the recent SHORT-TERM data(your source) and conclude this LONG-TERM trend is over (and you might be right) but that would be irresponsible, because you would be ignoring the rest of the data that has been collected for over 100 years heretofore.

Look at the graphs in the links I provided. You can see that the fact raised by the OP and his/her data is nothing new and indeed there has been many short cooling periods throughout the history of our collection of data.

For instance a stock that is shooting to the sky for decades has some dips in the graphical charting of the monitor of its behavior yet the overall trend is up up up.

LOOK AT THIS AND YOU TELL ME WHAT THE OVERALL TREND IS???

-Alien

edit on 1/30/2012 by Alien Abduct because: to add something

reply to post by TrueAmerican


@True American, did you bother to read the entire Daily Mail article? To wit:

"Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences (of the Sun cycle) now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’"

The article -- and you -- are implying falsehoods. The DM article suggests that the global average temperature is not rising, but lowering; however, they provide no direct evidence of this. 31,000 stations are mentioned, but it is not said if those stations are measuring temperature or solar radiation.

There are at least two effects affecting global temperature: solar radiation output and the concentration of greenhouse gasses. The Met (Meteorological?) Office is saying that the Sun is in or near its 22-25 yr cycle low in heat output; however, in the the paragraph I quoted, the agency says this effect is dwarfed by the effect of greenhouse gas build up.

This article and your post are excellent examples of the rhetorical spin used by climate change deniers. The title of your post: "CONFIRMED: Global Warming 'Ended 15 Years Ago" is patently false. How does this news article "confirm" that global warming ended 15 years ago? This would mean that there has already been some evidence to support such a hypothesis and that this additional data backs it up; however, this is not the case.

Evidence of climate change/global (average) warming is overwhelming: look at the retreating glaciers in any part of the world. I is not a matter of measuring them in the summer vs. the winter and manipulating the data; the glaciers are receding and this is measured from year to year at the same time.

And as for those individuals demanding 31,000 pieces of evidence to counter the 31,000 weather stations, if global warming is to be believed: this is a spurious argument. First off, as I already noted, the article doesn't even say what these stations have measured, i.e. is it temperature or solar radiation? Second, which ever type of data this is, it is only one line of evidence, not 31,000; so 31,000 lines of evidence aren't needed to contradict it.

The OP and supporters the of it in this thread just show the level of ignorance and dogma perpetrated by climate-change deniers.

according to the Seed Packages and the host of minds at NOAA, the climate professors that were asked for their input...


the 'the world's Planting 'Zones' have had to be updated due to the increased warming for the past 100 and more so the last 50 years...and revised last in 1990



here ya go: [from 4 days ago, 27 jan 2011]

www.google.com...


(note to self) ~~New map for what/when to plant reflects global warming~





planthardiness.ars.usda.gov...

in addition here's ...above link... is the official zone map

Is the temp raise over guys?? jeeez I don't know its really hard to tell




-Alien

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
The arrogance of humans never ceases to amaze me. You tiny little insignificant people are not making any impact on the entire globe.

The arrogance of humans never ceases to amaze me. Thinking 7 billion(!) people with all their consumption wouldn't make any dent in the global environment!