Global warming ended 9 years ago

[semiautomatix]

In 2007:

High price for load of hot air

WITH understandable reluctance, Prime Minister John Howard recently donned the political hair-shirt of a carbon trading system.

On the same day, NASA chief Michael Griffin commented in a US radio interview that "I am not sure that it is fair to say that (global warming) is a problem that we must wrestle with".

NASA is an agency that knows a thing or two about climate change. As Griffin added: "We study global climate change, that is in our authorisation, we think we do it rather well.

"I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change."

Such a clear statement that science accomplishment should carry primacy over policy advice is both welcome and overdue.

Nonetheless, there is something worrying about one of Griffin's other statements, which said that "I have no doubt . . . that a trend of global warming exists".

Griffin seems to be referring to human-caused global warming, but irrespective of that his opinion is unsupported by the evidence.

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html

Even in the 70s scientists believed we were in a period of global cooling. We are experiencing normal patterns in a cycle that occurs for several decades at a time, sometimes more extreme, sometimes not.

Why are we so arrogant to believe ourselves so capable of doing such damage? Short of a nuclear winter, I think we are over selling and over playing the global warming card.

I do not deny that the pollution and the obvious devastation, as a result, are not real, and if anything this "Global Warming" scare will at least bring our attention to such issues.

However, I am still not convinced global warming as a human caused and almost irreversible concept actually exists. In fact, Mars is going through the exact same temperature changes which leads us to believe it may be a solar related event.

I would like to see people present evidence to the contrary, but as far as I'm concerned it's business as usual.

 

[battletoad]

Has been said already that the sun is going thru an unusually hot period(soz no source-opera mini) that started circa early 90's. Scientists still cant find common ground on the cause or effects. Still think we need at least another 20years to figure it all out but its best to start now trying to conserve energy/resources or find alternate green methods to go about our daily bizniz

 

[Tun@]

Heard this on the radio today...IF correct this hasn't happened before has it?
The North Pole will turn into an open sea during summer within a decade, according to data released by a team of explorers who trekked through the Arctic for three months.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/15/tech/main5385527.shtml

 

[battletoad]

Doubt it happened during recorded history(ie since the dawn of oral history).

Sat in an enviromental awareness lecture once, apparently seafarers have been dreaming about travelling over the northern corridor for millenia. A stellar OBE candidate (in class) said this occurance would benefit cape town harbour when asked by the lecturer what effects said corridor would have on our shipping routes.
/facepalm

 

[battletoad]

Note to self:read article first! Thought the corridor/passage wasnt referred to in that article

An ice free arctic has a very real possibility of changing all ocean currents thereby fscking up marine life the world over. Yet we squabbling over money. Someone please drop the bomb and disinfect the world's worst parasite!

 

[I am Penguin]

Global warming ended 9 years ago

Your opinion or fact?

 

[ponder]

An ice free arctic has a very real possibility of changing all ocean currents thereby fscking up marine life the world over.

Not only marine life but all life on the planet. It has happened before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_event

 

[Phronesis]

The Arctic sea extent data:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

It updates automatically every hour IIRC .

Ice-free arctic soon? Meh...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE[/ame]


Just to put things into perspective, here is an excellent video of satellite images of the arctic since 1978:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8SGs_gnFk[/ame]

And recently published data suggest:
Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era
In order to prevent possible confusion:
Arctic = North Pole
Antarctic = South Pole

 

[TheLoot]

Each side of the debate has it's winners and losers, with all the corruption and greed in the world it is difficult to believe anything published on the matter. That's my opinion anyway.

According to Munich Re there has been a significant increase in losses due to natural disasters over the past 50 years.

Source 4.4MB

(Don't know why the pic isn't showing, I used the img tags )

I found something about the Mars warming thing at : http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642-climate-myths-mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too.html

Once again there's two completely different sides and I honestly don't know.

At the end of the day even Munich Re could be pushing this because they could benefit from charging insurance companies higher premiums due to the higher losses caused by climate change, so who do you trust at the end of the day?!

 

[BCO]

From the OP:

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

That's pure tolly I'm afraid. Every year this century has been hotter than every year last century except for 1998.

 

[Leitmotif]

That's pure tolly I'm afraid. Every year this century has been hotter than every year last century except for 1998.

I'd like to know who was measuring and how accurate their instruments were.

 

[BCO]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

The uncertainty in annual measurements of the global average temperature (95% range) is estimated to be ~0.05°C since 1950 and as much as ~0.15°C in the earliest portions of the instrumental record. The error in recent years is dominated by the incomplete coverage of existing temperature records. Early records also have a substantial uncertainty driven by systematic concerns over the accuracy of sea surface temperature measurements.[23][24] Station densities are highest in the northern hemisphere, providing more confidence in climate trends in this region. Station densities are far lower in other regions such as the tropics, northern Asia and the former Soviet Union. This results in less confidence in the robustness of climate trends in these areas. If a region with few stations includes a poor quality station, the impact on global temperature would be greater than in a grid with many weather stations.

Still, an uncertainty of around 0.05 degrees is not enough to negate the observed 0.2 degree yearly temperature rise.

 

[semiautomatix]

Your opinion or fact?

Honestly, what is wrong with you? Did you even bother to read the article?

 

[semiautomatix]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record



Still, an uncertainty of around 0.05 degrees is not enough to negate the observed 0.2 degree yearly temperature rise.

Except the ground-based temperature hasn't increased in 10 years.

 

[BCO]

Except the ground-based temperature hasn't increased in 10 years.

Nope, I'm talking about surface temperature and it has increased.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/

The bottom line is: the observed warming over the last decade is 100% consistent with the expected anthropogenic warming trend of 0.2 ºC per decade, superimposed with short-term natural variability. It is no different in this respect from the two decades before. And with an El Niño developing in the Pacific right now, we wouldn’t be surprised if more temperature records were to be broken over the coming year or so.

*edit* I stand corrected on my above post, btw. Warming is 0.2 degrees per decade not per year.

 

[semiautomatix]

Nope, I'm talking about surface temperature and it has increased.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/



*edit* I stand corrected on my above post, btw. Warming is 0.2 degrees per decade not per year.

And there are many reports claiming this isn't true. This is obvious because the Antarctic is currently freezing, not melting. So who do we believe?

Even if the planet is warming how do we know it has anything to do with CO2 emissions? It could be some external factors contributing to the temperature increase.

 

[BCO]

And there are many reports claiming this isn't true. This is obvious because the Antarctic is currently freezing, not melting. So who do we believe?

Even if the planet is warming how do we know it has anything to do with CO2 emissions? It could be some external factors contributing to the temperature increase.

We believe the peer reviewed literature on the subject, 99% of which points to anthropogenic greenhouse gases being the cause of current warming; warming that is continuing as predicted.

 

[I am Penguin]

Honestly, what is wrong with you? Did you even bother to read the article?

So You have proven it now, we have to believe your opinion, based on one article/report and ignore the other millions of reports/articles out there.

I must must say it does not feel to bad today so Yeah the report must be 100% right. Gloabal warming? Its all a scam.

 

[HapticSimian]

So You have proven it now, we have to believe your opinion, based on one article/report and ignore the other millions of reports/articles out there.

I must must say it does not feel to bad today so Yeah the report must be 100% right. Gloabal warming? Its all a scam.

So, just accept the status quo and not pose any questions, then?

Okey dokey...

The global warming debate isn't exactly AIDS denialism. It is far from clear-cut as to the degree of causation levelled at human activity. Personally I don't think it's a question of one or the other, but the sun's kinda a big and angry thing - fluctuations in its processes will affect us quite drastically.

However, as timgaul initially stated; even if it ends up being bunk, at least the debate will draw attention to rampant pollution and deforestation.

 

[BCO]

So, just accept the status quo and not pose any questions, then?

Okey dokey...

The global warming debate isn't exactly AIDS denialism. It is far from clear-cut as to the degree of causation levelled at human activity. Personally I don't think it's a question of one or the other, but the sun's kinda a big and angry thing - fluctuations in its processes will affect us quite drastically.

However, as timgaul initially stated; even if it ends up being bunk, at least the debate will draw attention to rampant pollution and deforestation.

Actually, there is very widespread agreement on most of the GW issue amongst qualified climate scientists - there really is no "debate" except the debate portrayed in the media. The only real contested area now is exactly how much warming is going to occur and what the effects of this warming will be on ecosystems and human habitats etc.