Global warming stopped 16 years ago (Met Office)
- Thread starter MojoMan
- Start date
i put off linking to this for fear of battering our local AGW religionists, but I will respond "for" them, at least partially:
1. The trend when you add any time to the timeframe used in the article is still upward. (as in, by starting the graph a year earlier we see a warming trend emerge)
2. This indeed may be only a "pause"
3. the models do allow for this somewhat, but only on the lowest extremes of their prediction, which means that this IS at least somewhat surprising.
note, the above 3 are not sarcastic. they are my views and the views that our local enthusiasts can rightfully invoke. having said that, the claims we have seen on here countless times that imply (or explicitly state) that warming has continued unabated are indeed absurd.
we have certainly seen a pause of some sort in the past 10-15 years. one could argue that it won't reach statistical significance until next year, but that may only put off the inevitable as next year is shaping up to not be so spectacular with the current El Nino already sputtering. Of course, that could change and next year could be quite warm indeed. Regardless, even with an extremely warm year next year, the warming of the 17 years that include next year will be quite pedestrian. It seems we are in a warming hiatus of sorts.
We shall see how long it lasts, but with the current sun cycle soon to peak and then to decline, the sun may be working against any radical warming. In fact, we very well may see cooling "soon" as even the most ardent IPCC types are admitting that the sun looks to be entering a sustained period of low sunspot activity.
1. The trend when you add any time to the timeframe used in the article is still upward. (as in, by starting the graph a year earlier we see a warming trend emerge)
2. This indeed may be only a "pause"
3. the models do allow for this somewhat, but only on the lowest extremes of their prediction, which means that this IS at least somewhat surprising.
note, the above 3 are not sarcastic. they are my views and the views that our local enthusiasts can rightfully invoke. having said that, the claims we have seen on here countless times that imply (or explicitly state) that warming has continued unabated are indeed absurd.
we have certainly seen a pause of some sort in the past 10-15 years. one could argue that it won't reach statistical significance until next year, but that may only put off the inevitable as next year is shaping up to not be so spectacular with the current El Nino already sputtering. Of course, that could change and next year could be quite warm indeed. Regardless, even with an extremely warm year next year, the warming of the 17 years that include next year will be quite pedestrian. It seems we are in a warming hiatus of sorts.
We shall see how long it lasts, but with the current sun cycle soon to peak and then to decline, the sun may be working against any radical warming. In fact, we very well may see cooling "soon" as even the most ardent IPCC types are admitting that the sun looks to be entering a sustained period of low sunspot activity.
Crocket, your answer is nonsense. Remember, the ENTIRE U.S. is 2% of the surface of the earth. That means Iowa is SIGNFICANTLY below 1/10th of 1% of the earth's surface. Is it your convention that a local drought in Iowa is "evidence' of some sort for Anthropogenic Global Warming? Seriously? Come on man, you are too smart to throw out arguments that are this paltry.
Having said that, here is the MET's "official" response to the article posted:
MET response
Having said that, here is the MET's "official" response to the article posted:
MET response
Look, if you are looking for someone to settle forever the issue of global warming, I'm not your guy. I was, very honestly, concerned about the midwestern drought that devestated the corn crop and the sharp reduction in the Arctic Ice Cap and whether that is part of an earthwide trend towards catastophically warmer temperatures and destabilization of climate patterns that are good for agricultural production in the United States. Iowa food production is of international importance vastly greater than the portion of the earth's surface which it occupies.
I wasn't sure who to trust before I read the linked article and I'm still not sure I know who to trust now. I'm not ready to move to the "What, me worry?" camp on global warming. No global warming for more than a decade is good news, but not immediately reconcileable with stories that indeed give me cause for worry.
I wasn't sure who to trust before I read the linked article and I'm still not sure I know who to trust now. I'm not ready to move to the "What, me worry?" camp on global warming. No global warming for more than a decade is good news, but not immediately reconcileable with stories that indeed give me cause for worry.
omnipresent
1,000+ Posts
I'm here checking in and waiting too.
Crocket, that is a much more reasonable position than the sarcasm of your previous post indicated. i am fine with your description of your position in light of your most recent response. bottom line, the issue is NOT settled by any stretch because there is tons we do not know. this stand still in global temperatures perfectly illustrates that point, melting Arctic and droughts in Iowa notwithstanding.
Crocket- I agree completely that this doesnt prove anything one way or another regarding AGW.
The only interesting thing, to me at least, is the quote I copied about the leading scientist in AGW theory admitting that there is much they still do not know about this issue. The Pasos of the world call anyone else who says this "idiots" and claim the science is settled when it clearly isn't. CO2 is a heat trapping gas. Its affect on the climate though is still very much debatable and Phil Jones just admitted it.
The only interesting thing, to me at least, is the quote I copied about the leading scientist in AGW theory admitting that there is much they still do not know about this issue. The Pasos of the world call anyone else who says this "idiots" and claim the science is settled when it clearly isn't. CO2 is a heat trapping gas. Its affect on the climate though is still very much debatable and Phil Jones just admitted it.
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
I wasn't expecting such a big graph.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Or such an unattributed one...
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
What happens on the right side? It is like one of those middle school timelines that go all the way around the room.
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
Skeptical Science? That has to be one of the worst names for a journal ever. It has to be like a 3rd or 4th tier journal if you can't get published anywhere else.
omnipresent
1,000+ Posts
And one of the names cited on his most recent link. Guess who? JOHN COOK - AKA MR. SKEPTICAL SCIENCE
LOL pasotex.. you're providing fodder aplenty - like a puppy chasing his tail, literally and figuratively
LOL pasotex.. you're providing fodder aplenty - like a puppy chasing his tail, literally and figuratively
fair enough Paso, so it was published in another journal as well. So was the thing in Skeptical Science the ENTIRE thing? or was it more like a long preview? because that was incredibly short and fairly lacking in facts that weren't big, global and rather sweeping, which doesn't mean it isn't correct, but it does leave much to be desired. Should be interesting how others respond to it. Regardless, we have seen the ambient global temperatures stand still now for 15 years (plus) and that is not what anyone on the AGW side really expected. Did some allow for it as a highly improbable but nonetheless possible event? I suppose so. But each year of no warming makes what is happening less clear.
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
Skeptical Science is hosting the entire article. It was published in a Physics journal. I provided a link to the entire article in the vain hopes that someone might read it. I did not provide a link to a newspaper article from the UK.
I am curious though about your ever shifting "position" on global warming. Is it now your position that warming has stopped?
I am curious though about your ever shifting "position" on global warming. Is it now your position that warming has stopped?
Paso, a good scientist WOULD have an "ever-shifting" position. Having said that, my position has been fairly consistent. My position is that the earth has warmed and "is warming" if you look at time periods longer than about 16-17 years. But it is clear that we have "stopped warming" for the past 15 years or so. Now, might the warming pick back up next year unabated? sure. Would it then be correct to say in 5 years (assuming it continues to warm) that it has warmed over the past 20 years? sure.
This isn't rocket science. You trying to trap me makes you look very sophomoric in both your logic and your understanding. If you can't keep up with the conversation, you shouldn't take part. You are trying to score rhetorical points rather than having an honest discussion and it is rather pathetic.
This isn't rocket science. You trying to trap me makes you look very sophomoric in both your logic and your understanding. If you can't keep up with the conversation, you shouldn't take part. You are trying to score rhetorical points rather than having an honest discussion and it is rather pathetic.
That's hilarious, Paso. Mop's had the same position for years. You always mischaracterize him. How about your position?
I noticed that you never showed back up to defend your inane position that all possible explanations of global warming other than carbon dioxide had been disproved.
Have you shifted that position? If not, you are a laughing stock.
I noticed that you never showed back up to defend your inane position that all possible explanations of global warming other than carbon dioxide had been disproved.
Have you shifted that position? If not, you are a laughing stock.
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
Do we see posts that dispute the Earth revolves around the Sun? No, because there's absolutley ZERO data that suggests or could even be interpreted otherwise.
But AGW is not immune from that. Whatever you as a Hornfan poster feel personally, the fact is that there exists data and studies that AGW is misubderstood/misintepreted/non-contextual, etc. Much of that data and studies are produced by credentialed scientists, by scientists who previously believed in AGW.
If AGW were as certain as the Earth revolving around the Sun...there would be no studies to suggest otherwise instead of studies that AGWers try to discredit.
If AGW were certain, the debate would be philosophical discussions over the role and responsibilities of Man instead of dorkapooza over temperature data.
But AGW is not immune from that. Whatever you as a Hornfan poster feel personally, the fact is that there exists data and studies that AGW is misubderstood/misintepreted/non-contextual, etc. Much of that data and studies are produced by credentialed scientists, by scientists who previously believed in AGW.
If AGW were as certain as the Earth revolving around the Sun...there would be no studies to suggest otherwise instead of studies that AGWers try to discredit.
If AGW were certain, the debate would be philosophical discussions over the role and responsibilities of Man instead of dorkapooza over temperature data.
once again, here is the graph of the past 15 years from 1998 to now. the graph from 1997 is actually only slightly different. We are basically staring down 16 years of no change come December 31st. Yes, i know that 1998 was a super-el-nino, but 15 years have passed and we have released HUGE amounts of CO2. we should be moving up according to predictions.
Wood For Trees all 4 primary data sets
Wood For Trees all 4 primary data sets
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
My response is the warming trend remains unabated. It is backed by scientific papers and research.
As for my position that alternative explanations to CO2 and man being the cause of warming have been examined and eliminated, I already addressed this. The proof is significant, multiple, and overlapping. It consists of physical science concerning the properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. I also consists of climate models along with actual data. There are so many multiple levels of proof that unless you spend a few weeks or months reading the literature it is impossible to post it all here. I have posted this material repeatedly. You "skeptics" ignore it or don't understand it or both.
As for my position that alternative explanations to CO2 and man being the cause of warming have been examined and eliminated, I already addressed this. The proof is significant, multiple, and overlapping. It consists of physical science concerning the properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. I also consists of climate models along with actual data. There are so many multiple levels of proof that unless you spend a few weeks or months reading the literature it is impossible to post it all here. I have posted this material repeatedly. You "skeptics" ignore it or don't understand it or both.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Happy Thanksgiving to all
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 5
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
