Global warming stopped 16 years ago (Met Office)

Calling others skeptics while citing links from skeptical science, then attempting to chastise others by questioning if they've read what you're posting. Oh the stench of liberal irony
 
paso, the thing is that you are growing more lonely in your confidence. there are plenty on your side of the argument who are now uncomfortable with the lack of warming we have seen over the past 15 years. as i have said many times, this could change starting immediately (although that seems unlikely for at least the next few months). regardless, no model or AGW scientist thought that this is where we would be in 2012 when they were predicting back in 2000. for you to not admit that makes you look obtuse. might you be right about everything? yes! but, you are incredibly close minded about it and don't appear to think like a scientist much at all actually. a true scientist should always be questioning what has been assumed and looking for where they might be wrong. With this issue there are a HOST of places (starting with our data on Ocean Heat Content if we want to make it specific to this thread) where we have great uncertainty. why you pretend we have it all figured out as an international community is beyond me.
 
I did not say "we have it all figured out." What I said was that the basic science was settled. The earth is warming and the primary cause is man. This is settled or to put it scientifically highly probable with no other reasonable explanation. It is very similar to the "debate" over smoking and cancer or evolution. There are issues around the margins, but the central science is as settled as science can ever be. The primary issue is what the exact equilibrium will be in response to a doubling of CO2.
 
well, even if you are right (and I don't think you are), that alone is a HUGE issue. the range of estimates on that question is a perfect example of a major issue of uncertainty. But there are many more.
 
pasotex - I've posed this question more than a few times to you and other AGW "theorists". Let's assume that man is responsible for a recent upward trend in global temps. And, with that, we're doomed? If so, why? How can anyone know how our ecosystem or meteorlogical data will evolve? It's a naturally occuring phenomena. Case in point - in the majority of the links you've provided, the most substantive evidence of warming points to mans involvement in some way. It conveniently follows the industrial revolution graphs. Prior to our contribution to carbon, etc..what caused nonillions of cubic ft of ice to melt from where we now walk?
 
We are not doomed. A 3 or 4 degree C warmer earth will most likely support far fewer people. It will badly damage the ability to mass produce food and the rise in acid levels in the oceans will tremendously degrade their ability to provide sustenance.
 
The last time the world experienced a month with temps below the average was February 1985.

Sept. 2012 tied Sept 2005 as the warmest September on record globally so I see why you guys think global warming stopped in 1997.

Seriously, at this point I think you guys are just trolling because that's the only explanation I can fathom. Logic & science are nowhere near this conversation.
 
Alright smarty - you dissected my post to pasotex and gave your opinions.. but, you carefully side stepped the questions I posed. Nice, smarty. And keep up, I've concurred to man's input on AGW, no flat earth mindset here, smarty
 
Texoz, we may not agree on everything, but I appreciate and respect your response to my post. One thing I'm sure we all can agree on is that both sides are guilty of skewing fact due to agendas.

My faith-based beliefs don't make me blind or ignorant to what science has proven. My beef is with government implemented programs which utilize AGW to line pockets. I'd love to see us utilize our resources for the good of mankind, though I despise sanctions and regulations brought upon industrial leaders which actually drive costs up and development down.

Having said that, what part (if any) and how does the USA implement "green think" to other countries guilty of blatantly ignoring these issues?
 
speaking of which, a brand new study is out in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences and it suggests that when you include an allowance for the AMO (Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation), you see the Anthropogenic signal go to "remarkably consistent" over the past century. From the report over at Watts, it cuts AGW in half, but I am only having to trust them as it is behind a paywall, so all I can read is the abstract:

Anthropogenic signal absent the AMO

I did find it interesting that the authors claim that no study to date has tried to back the AMO out of the signal. That is quite surprising to me. The authors seem to embrace AGW and they seem to reject the notion that the sun has had much of an influence….
 
uh. exactly! That's sort of our point man.

I see most of your posts putting forth the position that the changes in climate are NOT due to man-made influences, where my position is more agnostic, i.e., we don't have sufficient data (yet) to clearly and convincingly state one way or the other.
 
actually, my position is similarly agnostic with a definite bent towards thinking much of the warming is natural. I do allow for anthropogenic influence, but am not at all sold on the notion that we are mostly responsible.
 
Very well said Bronco. As if to make our point. A new study has now been released in the Climate of the Past Journal, which shows a reconstruction of the past 2,000 years. What is interesting is that now they are acknowledging a Medieval Warm Period that was warmer than current temperatures (much to the chagrin of many who wanted to delete it I am sure).

Climate of the Past
 
mop - Cant find a graph on the paper you posted. I think the key point would not necessarily be whether the time period was warmer or not but the rapididity of the warming. Was the warming at a similar pace to today?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top