Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Global warming 'on pause' but set to resume

184 posts in this topic

No sir you have me mistaken for soomeone else. I have been looking at the ten thousand year picture. You know the one that shows the ice age ending then, and the start of global warming. Humans were using camp fires then. You are tge one looking at thesmall picture as long as it says what you want it to say.

There have been about 30 minor climate fluctuations in the last 10,000 years. Some people think they've found evidence of human effects on climate as early as 8000 YBP. I'm not so sure. The big impact started with massive burning of fossil fuels - the Industrial Revolution. But the upturn in temps that we refer as "global warming" started in 1908/1909, paused from 1950 to 1976, then started up again. It paused again from 1998 to 2005 and has been edging up slowly since.

For the climate skeptics: what makes you think that the current pause in warming is anything other than a pause? The last pause lasted 25 years; then temps shot up. This pause is going on 16 years old; it could run another ten years without being unusual.

For 10,000 years, temperatures have shot up, then slowly tapered off, returning to "normal." But that hasn't happened in 104 years. There have been two pauses that should have returned the climate to "normal." But they didn't.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In the seventies they said we were headed into an ice age. It s your own siencetests that te last fifteen years of pushing the panic button was a lie. Reread the op and the story. We have been warming up for ten thousand years. That doesn't mean we hacen't slid backwards at times. As long as there are glaciers tech. We are still in an iceage.

There is no normal in climate. In fact it has been abnormal for the last ten thousand years. We have had a pretty calm climate. The climate should be all over the place but it isn't.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the seventies they said we were headed into an ice age. It s your own siencetests that te last fifteen years of pushing the panic button was a lie. Reread the op and the story. We have been warming up for ten thousand years. That doesn't mean we hacen't slid backwards at times. As long as there are glaciers tech. We are still in an iceage.

There is no normal in climate. In fact it has been abnormal for the last ten thousand years. We have had a pretty calm climate. The climate should be all over the place but it isn't.

The media said we were headed for an ice age based on the work of two scientists. they got their calculations wrong because they calculated the Milankovich cycle wrong. Meanwhile at the same time there were already numerous scientists talking about and writing papers predicting global warming.

Show me a definition of an ice age which requires there to be glaciers, which has anything to do with the existence of mountain glaciers. You can't because there is no such thing. Its another invention.

Its a myth daniel, just a myth. Every climate perturbation can have a traceable cause - it just so happens that this one has been traced to greenhouses gases and land use change.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In the seventies they said we were headed into an ice age.

There were no opinions to that effect published in scientific journals (except one, based on a math mistake). The entire episode was due to the popular press misinterpreting a slight downturn in temps. Like you deniers, they like to grasp at a straw and construct a disaster story from it - sells more advertising if you forecast a disaster. Nothing has changed in that department in the last 40 years. The low point was in 1964 when the globally averaged temperature was 0.21 degrees Centigrade below the 1951-1980 average. There was a smaller dip in 1974/1975 just before the current excursion started.

It s your own siencetests that te last fifteen years of pushing the panic button was a lie. Reread the op and the story.

I read it once. What they're saying is that the underlying causes are still there. The ocean temperatures are still rising. Even if the rest of the atmospheric temps are on hold, Antarctica is warming. And warming resumed in 2008, so the article is not entirely true. Temperatures are trending slowly upward and have been for the last going-on-five years. Your information is rapidly getting obsolete.

We have been warming up for ten thousand years. That doesn't mean we hacen't slid backwards at times. As long as there are glaciers tech. We are still in an iceage.

The Last Glacial Maximum was about 19,000 years ago. Temperatures warmed up to approximately modern by about 14,000 years ago. Remember: That's the Ice Age. At about 12,900 YBP they took a sudden dive back to full ice age conditions. Some people think it was triggered by an asteroid impact on the ice sheet. Others think the draining of Lake Agassiz had something to do with it. Maybe both. At any rate, the Younger Dryas Cold Period lasted 1300 years to about 11,660 YBP (It has been ring dated, but I don't remember the exact years.). At the end of the YDCP, temperatures suddenly warmed up. The change to modern temperatures took only 40 years. We don't know what caused it, but it was coincidental with the catastrophic draining of the Baltic Ice Lake. Presumably this somehow restarted the Gulf Stream. Global temps have remained fairly constant since then, with only a few minor ups and down. The biggest of them was the 8200 BP Cold Period which was probably caused by the collapse of a pro-glacial ice dam that catastrophically drained Lake Agassiz-Ojibway into Hudson Bay. That was the dying gasp of the ice age. Since then, we have been in an interglacial climate. Until 1907, which was the coldest year in the modern record with temps 0.41 degrees C. below the mean. BTW: 1828 was about 1.60 degrees C. below the mean, but that was determined from US Army records and is not a global estimate. It was also the Little Ice Age.

There is no normal in climate. In fact it has been abnormal for the last ten thousand years. We have had a pretty calm climate. The climate should be all over the place but it isn't.

The problem with "normal" is that it is defined as the running average of the last 30 years. That means that continued high temps are raising the average and changing the definition of "normal."

As for climate being all over the place:

In 1880, the average global temp was -0.32 degrees C (That's in departures from the 1951-1980 mean.). Using a straight-line estimate and including all years from 1880 to 2012, inclusive. Since then, on average, the global mean temperature has climbed 0.0063 degrees per year - for 133 years. The standard error for those yearly averages was 0.0757 degrees. That doesn't sound like much: only 0.315 degrees since 1963. BUT: 1963 was the last year cold enough to make Lake Erie freeze over. The "lake effect" which occurred only in the fall before then, now occurs all winter long. Lot's of extra snow for those folks on the south shore - because of global warming. That same 0.315-degree rise in temps saw the meltoff of almost half the Arctic ice pack. Again, that doesn't seem like much until you realize what 0.315 degrees can do. What will happen over the next 0.3 degrees (estimated for 2060 if warming continues at the rate the deniers call "stopped")?

You didn't notice the 0.315 degree rise in temps. Odds are, you won't notice the next 0.315 degrees, either. What you will notice is an increase in violent weather. And that's happening right here, right now.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are interested in anthropogenic effects on the climate, what has events 10,000 years ago to do with it? The industrial revolution is the real factor here, so data from the last 200 or even just the last century are what are relevant, and the closer one gets the the present the more relevant it all gets.

I think the reason people like going so far back in time is that it changes the appearance of the graphs and charts so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The media said we were headed for an ice age based on the work of two scientists. they got their calculations wrong because they calculated the Milankovich cycle wrong. Meanwhile at the same time there were already numerous scientists talking about and writing papers predicting global warming.

Show me a definition of an ice age which requires there to be glaciers, which has anything to do with the existence of mountain glaciers. You can't because there is no such thing. Its another invention.

Its a myth daniel, just a myth. Every climate perturbation can have a traceable cause - it just so happens that this one has been traced to greenhouses gases and land use change.

Br Cornelius

And according to the op all of the climate scientist has gotten it wrong for fifteen years, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are interested in anthropogenic effects on the climate, what has events 10,000 years ago to do with it? The industrial revolution is the real factor here, so data from the last 200 or even just the last century are what are relevant, and the closer one gets the the present the more relevant it all gets.

I think the reason people like going so far back in time is that it changes the appearance of the graphs and charts so much.

Ten thousand years isn't that long for a planet that is four billion years old. Natural climate change takes a very long time to take affect. Ten thousand years ago the earth changed its orbit a tiny bit bring it closer to the sun, or the earth got cold enough to start the converbelt to working right. Now the converbelt may be shutting down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are changing the subjet; the subject is anthropogenic climate change. What will happen a million years ago is not at issue.

You kinda remind me of someone whose house if burning and who doesn't bother to get off the porch, sayining, "Well, the house had termites anyway so in fifty years this porch would collapse anyway."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You are changing the subjet; the subject is anthropogenic climate change. What will happen a million years ago is not at issue.

You kinda remind me of someone whose house if burning and who doesn't bother to get off the porch, sayining, "Well, the house had termites anyway so in fifty years this porch would collapse anyway."

Sorry fred but what is happening today falls right into the pattern that the climate has gone through over the last million years or billionyears or a thousand years.

So, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repete it. Those who fail from climate history are doomed.

You'll be buying out the sun screen and swim out fits and next thing you know your in an ice age.

To give n I of how quickly the climate can turn cold. Look at the mammoths we have been pulling out of tge ice. It would take a huge temp drop to freeze a mammoth in place, with his last meal undigested.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And according to the op all of the climate scientist has gotten it wrong for fifteen years, at least.

No they have not, as Doug said pauses have happened before and are not unexpected. No one got it wrong because climate change/global warming has continued throughout that whole 15 year period. It just hasn't manifested as surface temperature warming which is the only metric which shows a pause.

Warming never stopped.

Br Cornelius

Sorry fred but what is happening today falls right into the pattern that the climate has gone through over the last million years or billionyears or a thousand years.

So, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repete it. Those who fail from climate history are doomed.

You'll be buying out the sun screen and swim out fits and next thing you know your in an ice age.

To give n I of how quickly the climate can turn cold. Look at the mammoths we have been pulling out of tge ice. It would take a huge temp drop to freeze a mammoth in place, with his last meal undigested.

Climate science is all about learning from history - so you are wrong again.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are interested in anthropogenic effects on the climate, what has events 10,000 years ago to do with it? The industrial revolution is the real factor here, so data from the last 200 or even just the last century are what are relevant, and the closer one gets the the present the more relevant it all gets.

I think the reason people like going so far back in time is that it changes the appearance of the graphs and charts so much.

Going that far back defines a baseline. That baseline is the definition of "normal" in terms of Holocene climate. You need to know what normal is before you can know if what you're experiencing is normal or not.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll be buying out the sun screen and swim out fits and next thing you know your in an ice age.

There will never be another ice age as long as we are in charge of the climate. We know how to warm the earth up. We're doing it without even trying. We can offset the effects of the Milankovic cycles with the output of ONE CFC plant. Warming up the earth is no sweat.

To give n I of how quickly the climate can turn cold. Look at the mammoths we have been pulling out of tge ice. It would take a huge temp drop to freeze a mammoth in place, with his last meal undigested.

Did you read the spot above where I mentioned the idea that there was a giant asteroid impact on the ice sheet? In an impact, large amounts of material, especially air, are displaced upward into space where it becomes chilled to temps like 130 below. This cold air has to go somewhere. When it descends, it quick-freezes anything it touches. Frozen mammoths are easy to explain. That is not climate per se, but the weather effects resulting in a return to normal certainly have an effect on climate, at least temporarily.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Susan Joy Rennison's blog, all of it.

http://www.susanrennison.com/News_oftheimbalance.php#Latest_News1

Notes from a ‘mole’ in Al Gore’s Climate Leadership Training

WUWT, 2nd August 2013

A person who is actually a climate skeptic (and WUWT regular) applied for and was granted a training slot in Chicago this week. http://climaterealityproject.org/leadership-corps/ and has graduated as one of the 1500 people that attended the event.

For obvious reasons, I can’t reveal the person’s name, but I can reveal the communication I received last night.

The ‘mole’ writes:

I’m now a card-carrying, official Gore-bot.

(I took copious notes)

a) This was a super-liberal “kum-bay-ya” crowd as I predicted. I kept many of my opinions to myself. The event truly did have a “religious cult programming” feel to it, similar to an Amway meeting I attended years ago – carefully timed applause, audience call & response etc. Very bizarre.

B) Al Gore himself went through the entire slide show that we are supposed to use as his “Climate Leaders.”

(rennison’s) Comment: Wow…. Al Gore has started his own little cult and done it by the book… Well, cults can be based on virtually anything as ‘beliefs’ are only part of what is going on… Whatever, the discussion of Al Gore and obvious use of cult tactics on this forum is interesting…. Really, WUWT is a climate skeptic blog! Well, this is too much! I suppose being realistic, cults are a tried and tested system of easily brainwashing susceptible people into committing to a cause… and then allow themselves to be exploited… Easy when you have zero integrity and have the know-how…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they have not, as Doug said pauses have happened before and are not unexpected. No one got it wrong because climate change/global warming has continued throughout that whole 15 year period. It just hasn't manifested as surface temperature warming which is the only metric which shows a pause.

Warming never stopped.

Br Cornelius

Climate science is all about learning from history - so you are wrong again.

Br Cornelius

Duringbthe lasr fifteen years, all we have heard and you have said, is that the climate was over heating and that was mans fault. Now, this story comes out and says never mind, but it will still take place. I have said that the earths climate was not anywhere as bad as the environmentalist have been saying, I was correct in this. Back in 2000 or 2001 that the earths temp would start to cool off for th next thirty five years. Although so far I have been wrong on tge cool off, I was closer to being correct. We still have another twenty three years for the planet to still cool off.

Frank this is in answer to you about past climate changes as well.

There is solar maximus, which is where are now, that is an eleven year cycle. The is a seventy year cycle which we are on the downword slide right now. There is also a hundred year cycle, I don't know where we are in that cycle. hich means for the next five and half years, the temps should get cooler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that rescuing mankind from its folly will have to be a result of luck, if it is going to happen. There are too many people who just don't want to look at reality.

The fact is I am rather hopeful we will be lucky, in the terms of technologies happening that either replace warming gasses or enable us in an emergency to remove them. We have to remember however that technology is not a magic wand. Sometimes needed technologies can be developed, but sometimes not.

Our ignorance of what is going on is such that it is entirely possible, although hardly ever mentioned out of fear of being accused of scare tactics, that we could set in place an unstoppable warming process that would turn our planet into another Venus. We have that example sitting right next to us perhaps as a warning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is the reason that politicias, liberal media pundits, and certainly the goons at the UN love "global warming" so much is that is so politically correct and is such a great excuse to expand government programs.

That people fail to see that and gobble up the slogans, is pretty astonishing.

"One must say clearly that we want to redistribute the world`s wealh by climate policy".

(Ottmar Edenhofer, United Nations IPCC)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares what that idiot said; the point is what the scientific community knows. l think you are allowing your politics and the fact that this issue has been misused by the Left for their purposes to prevent you from seeing the very real danger that confronts us.

One other thing -- anyone can "cherry pick" quotes to "prove" some point or other. It is propaganda, not rational argument.

Edited by Frank Merton
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Susan Joy Rennison's blog, all of it.

http://www.susanrenn...hp#Latest_News1

Notes from a ‘mole’ in Al Gore’s Climate Leadership Training

WUWT, 2nd August 2013

A person who is actually a climate skeptic (and WUWT regular) applied for and was granted a training slot in Chicago this week. http://climaterealit...adership-corps/ and has graduated as one of the 1500 people that attended the event.

For obvious reasons, I can’t reveal the person’s name, but I can reveal the communication I received last night.

The ‘mole’ writes:

I’m now a card-carrying, official Gore-bot.

(I took copious notes)

a) This was a super-liberal “kum-bay-ya” crowd as I predicted. I kept many of my opinions to myself. The event truly did have a “religious cult programming” feel to it, similar to an Amway meeting I attended years ago – carefully timed applause, audience call & response etc. Very bizarre.

B) Al Gore himself went through the entire slide show that we are supposed to use as his “Climate Leaders.”

(rennison’s) Comment: Wow…. Al Gore has started his own little cult and done it by the book… Well, cults can be based on virtually anything as ‘beliefs’ are only part of what is going on… Whatever, the discussion of Al Gore and obvious use of cult tactics on this forum is interesting…. Really, WUWT is a climate skeptic blog! Well, this is too much! I suppose being realistic, cults are a tried and tested system of easily brainwashing susceptible people into committing to a cause… and then allow themselves to be exploited… Easy when you have zero integrity and have the know-how…

How terribly informative.

You free market fundamentalists have your very own devil now :w00t:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duringbthe lasr fifteen years, all we have heard and you have said, is that the climate was over heating and that was mans fault. Now, this story comes out and says never mind, but it will still take place. I have said that the earths climate was not anywhere as bad as the environmentalist have been saying, I was correct in this. Back in 2000 or 2001 that the earths temp would start to cool off for th next thirty five years. Although so far I have been wrong on tge cool off, I was closer to being correct. We still have another twenty three years for the planet to still cool off.

Frank this is in answer to you about past climate changes as well.

There is solar maximus, which is where are now, that is an eleven year cycle. The is a seventy year cycle which we are on the downword slide right now. There is also a hundred year cycle, I don't know where we are in that cycle. hich means for the next five and half years, the temps should get cooler.

Daniel you have been closer to been wrong than you admit. the last 15 years has seen a steady but slower rise in temperature, there has been no cooling and we have experienced the 4 warmest years on record. These are not signs that cooling is imminent and not a sign that global warming has stopped.

Only cherry picking your data makes you anywhere close to be correct in your belief.

The solar cycle diverged from current terrestrial temperature trends over 30 years ago - the climate is not warming or cooling due to the 11year cycle. The data refutes your belief again.

This year is likely to top global temperature records - which is not an indication of imminent cooling. You will have your answer in 5 years time and it will not be pointing to a new ice age, it will be pointing to continued and accelerating warming. Attempts to account for the last 100years of warming using solar cycles have consistently failed to find any meaningful correlation - because the Sun is not the main driver of current warming - CO2 is.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to read the story. It clearly states there has not been a temp. rise in fifteen years. That statement was made by climte scientists.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come visit texas this week there is no lack of warming here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to read the story. It clearly states there has not been a temp. rise in fifteen years. That statement was made by climte scientists.

The most comprehensive dataset (the Metoffice) shows a slow but positive rise in temperatures. the American dataset shows a flat temperature trend, but is less accurate since it excludes the Arctic where most of the warming over the last 15 years has taken place. Then there is the fact that applying statistical techniques appropriate to the data (ie a 30 year time span - which is necessary to define a climate trend shows that warming has continued with almost no change over the last 15 years). The statement that there has been no warming is only true is you start your calculations from the hottest year on record, 1998, and don't apply a statistical test of significance to the trend from 1998 to 2012. If you apply a test of statistical significance the exceptional years of 1998 and the other four hot years since means that there is no real discernible trend at all. If you attempt to calculate a basic mean starting at 1996 the upward trend is strong, if you start calculating the trend from 2000 the upward trend is strong - this tells you that the data is to noisy to calculate a trend over those 15 years and is why the data fails a statistical test of significance.

On all counts, it is not true to say there has been no warming since 1998, and there are many other reasons for saying that this is not a true reflection of the global state of the climate.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent article which discusses why most of the IPCC predictions are far to conservative;

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4084c8ee-fa36-11e2-98e0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2auvAiDsX

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our

Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4084c8ee-fa36-11e2-98e0-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2b69phnUB

But there is one thing the final version must include when it is published next month, according to Sir Bob Watson, the British scientist and climate action advocate who chaired the IPCC for nearly six years up to 2002. “I think the current Working Group I report must address in detail the slowing down in the last 10 years,” he said, adding that although the past three decades were probably the warmest in 1,000 years, “there is also no question that it would appear that the rate of change in the last decade or so is definitely slower than the previous two decades.”

“The IPCC must address this because the climate deniers are linking on to this as a reason to say we’ve got all the science wrong. So I think one of the very most important issues is indeed for them to address this issue absolutely head on.”

The extent of this slowdown depends on how one measures it. Each of the past three decades has been warmer than the previous one and the long-term trend since the 1850s clearly shows a steady temperature rise. However, the average rate of warming was 0.17C per decade between 1970 and 1998 and just 0.04C per decade from 1998 to 2012, according to one of the main global temperature data sets.

Slowing temperature rises have happened before, notably between the 1940s and 1970s. But the recent slowdown has come even though the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 400 parts per million earlier this year, the highest level in millions of years.

This issue is so new that it was barely considered when the IPCC first met in 2009 to decide what would be in its next assessment and there is still no agreed name for it. Many scientists have started to call it the “hiatus” or “pause” and though it will be addressed in the final report, there is still no consensus on what has caused it. Some think it is happening because the oceans are absorbing more heat than once thought, especially at very great depths. Others think aerosols, tiny airborne particles from volcanic eruptions or industrial pollution that reflect sunlight away from the Earth could be having more of a cooling impact.

The most contentious theory – and the one global warming sceptics are most interested in – is that the climate is not as sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions as previously thought. Even if this proves correct, all the climate models used by the IPCC for its latest assessment show that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at current rates, the world will still exceed this century the 2C warming from pre-industrial levels that some scientists believe could prompt dangerous forms of climate change.

But in a sign of what a potent issue the slowdown is becoming, politicians in the US and the UK are already asking if it means they can ease back on contentious measures to curb global warming such as offshore wind farms or carbon pricing.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a small but tangible fear that we might be heading toward causing either a runaway heating and convert our planet into a Venus or even a runaway dust storm and convert us into a Mars. Do you have comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been no global warming in the last fifteen years according to the met, this is what the op story says. I can tell that nether of you have read the story.

Frank long before we become venus we will enter an ice age to cool things down. No chance we can become mars, earth is to wet.

Bc looks like your cherry picking again. Only one data points show warming, which means all of the other data points shows no warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.