Global warming stopped 16 years ago

[Doug1029]

it was once called global warming when it was pointed out it wasnt a uniformed warming of the planet they changed the name to the modern day climate change, what does that mean? it simply means a get out of jail free card. one region could be experiencing a milder winter while another part is experiencing a cooler summer. they the soothsayers can give predictions without fear of being held to account.

It's still called global warming when you're talking about temperatures. But the term doesn't make much sense when you're talking about changes in length of the growing season, or centimeters of rainfall, or changes in isolines.

It's called GLOBAL warming because GLOBAL temperatures are rising. That's what you need to look at to determine whether what you're saying is true or not. What happens at a given place may or may be the same as other places.

The fact that GLOBAL temperatures are rising is getting boring. What's interesting are the ups and downs of local climate and why they're happening. That's where the best research is being done now.

Doug

[Guest]

Global warming and climate change are both occurring and one doesn't replace the other. To make that statement shows a very basic lack of understanding.

Br Cornelius

Edited October 15, 2012 by Guest

[Little Fish]

It's called GLOBAL warming because GLOBAL temperatures are rising.

but they aren't.

The fact that GLOBAL temperatures are rising is getting boring.

but they aren't.

to quote lewis carrol, what you say three times is true, right?

[Doug1029]

but they aren't.

http://data.giss.nas...GLB.Ts dSST.txt

I'm getting tired of posting this. How about if you at least look at it this time?

2010 was the hottest year on record (since 1880), so far. Looks like 2012 is shaping up to be a cool one, if you can call the 7th hottest summer on record "cool" (Fifth hottest spring and 15th warmest winter.).

but they aren't.

I stand corrected. YOU do not find rising temperatures boring. I do.

If you want to understand climate, look at what goes up when other stuff goes down and vice versa.

Doug

Edited October 15, 2012 by Doug1029

[Guest Xetan]

Global Warming also accompanies mass cooling because of the change in ocean currents. With the warming comes melting, which means cooler waters being swept to a new locale, which will start cooling with those waters.

The events occurring are largely a natural cycle. However, that doesn't mean we should ignore them. Meteors crashing into the Earth is also a natural event, as are tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, solar flares, and many other things which like to murder us. So claiming "IT HAPPENS NATURALLY" isn't going to stop anybody from getting dead when fit hits the shan.

[Doug1029]

Global temperature anomalies on a callendar-year basis since 1996. Source: NCDC. Temperatures listed are in hundredths of a degree Celsius above the 1951-1980 baseline.

1996: 31

1997: 42

1998: 59

1999: 34

2000: 36

2001: 49

2002: 57

2003: 56

2004: 49

2005: 62

2006: 56

2007: 59

2008: 44

2009: 57

2010: 63

2011: 51

Any questions?

Doug

[Rafterman]

Frankly I don't know what to think anymore.

It seems impossible to find any non-agenda driven information on the topic - on both sides.

[Guest]

Frankly I don't know what to think anymore.

It seems impossible to find any non-agenda driven information on the topic - on both sides.

Try reading the scientific papers then if you don't like your facts predigested.

The scientists really haven't got an agenda - that is conspiracy theory territory.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

Try reading the scientific papers then if you don't like your facts predigested.

The scientists really haven't got an agenda - that is conspiracy theory territory.

Br Cornelius

Where I have to agree. The only one's with something to gain or to loose in this game are politicians (i.e. Carbon Tax) and Big Carbon (oil, gas and coal companies). The rest don't get anything more or less depending on the results, in fact many of them still get paid with or without publications.

Edited October 15, 2012 by questionmark

[Little Fish]

Try reading the scientific papers then if you don't like your facts predigested.

The scientists really haven't got an agenda - that is conspiracy theory territory.

Br Cornelius

lol, it is the scientists that disagree with man made warming.

funny how the alarmists always accuse those scientists that disagree as part of a "big oil" conspiracy theory. so you are saying that scientists that agree with you have no agenda, scientists that disagree have an agenda.

[Little Fish]

Try reading the scientific papers then if you don't like your facts predigested.

The scientists really haven't got an agenda - that is conspiracy theory territory.

Br Cornelius

lol, it is the scientists that disagree with man made warming.

funny how the alarmists always accuse those scientists that disagree as part of a "big oil" conspiracy theory. so you are saying that scientists that agree with you have no agenda, scientists that disagree have an agenda.

[Doug1029]

Frankly I don't know what to think anymore.

It seems impossible to find any non-agenda driven information on the topic - on both sides.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/suggested_reading_climate_change.html

[Little Fish]

Where I have to agree. The only one's with something to gain or to loose in this game are politicians (i.e. Carbon Tax) and Big Carbon (oil, gas and coal companies). The rest don't get anything more or less depending on the results, in fact many of the still get paid with or without publications.

oh really.

climategate email - "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." - alarmist tom wigley, and yes Saiers was "ousted".

lots more examples in the climategate emails of scientists having their careers damaged for merely not adhering to the warming doctrine, you know all this already though.

[Doug1029]

oh really.

climategate email - "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." - alarmist tom wigley, and yes Saiers was "ousted".

lots more examples in the climategate emails of scientists having their careers damaged for merely not adhering to the warming doctrine, you know all this already though.

Just wondering if you were planning to answer Posts 29 and 31 with some "facts" of your own, or are you planning to cut your losses and ignor them?

Doug

[questionmark]

oh really.

climategate email - "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." - alarmist tom wigley, and yes Saiers was "ousted".

lots more examples in the climategate emails of scientists having their careers damaged for merely not adhering to the warming doctrine, you know all this already though.

Right we know, now put on your tinfoil hat straight, it does not protect crooked.

[Little Fish]

Right we know, now put on your tinfoil hat straight, it does not protect crooked.

the words are not mine, they are Tom Wigley, himself, and the email is real.

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2151.txt

you are living in denial of the facts, and as usual you just insult the messenger.

[Little Fish]

Just wondering if you were planning to answer Posts 29 and 31 with some "facts" of your own, or are you planning to cut your losses and ignor them?

Doug

there is nothing to answer. you claimed "global temperatures are rising". this is a present tense statement. since global temperatures have not risen for the last 16 years it is incorrect to say they ARE rising. it would have been correct to say they rose for 15 years, then did not rise for the next 16 years. but you can't say that because someone might ask you why the "global temperature" did not rise for 16 years at a time when co2 increased by 10%. the usual speculative response to that question would then be that the heat has been absorbed by the oceans and will resurface sometime in the future, but again the ocean measurements to 700 meters depth have shown that the oceans have not been warming, they have in fact been coolling, but then the usual speculative response is that the heat must be below the ocean mix layer below 700 meters, but of course that cannot be the case either since co2 rereadiates in the long wave and is all absorbed in the first few microns of water, so heat from co2 infra red reradiation cannot penetarte the oeans at below 700 meters so would have to be first detected in the top 700 meters, so you are STUCK with the FACT that the man made warming hypothesis has failed, and as a bonus I've saved you from 20 pages of pointless discussion and meandering personal anecdotes.

[Guest]

It is not speculation to say that the heat is been sequestered in the deep ocean - it is recorded fact and accounts for the pause in surface warming over the last 16yrs. Global warming (warming of the globe as a whole) has not stopped but has continued as predicted;

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960112010389

Concentrating on the first 700meters is cherry picking the facts that suit a denialist agenda - nothing more. Little Fish should know this since we have discussed it at length and is ample evidence of his dishonesty.

Br Cornelius

Edited October 15, 2012 by Guest

[Guest Xetan]

Everytime I see this thread on the front page, I think it says: "Global Warming stopped by 16 year old!"

[Doug1029]

there is nothing to answer. you claimed "global temperatures are rising". this is a present tense statement. since global temperatures have not risen for the last 16 years it is incorrect to say they ARE rising. it would have been correct to say they rose for 15 years, then did not rise for the next 16 years. but you can't say that because someone might ask you why the "global temperature" did not rise for 16 years at a time when co2 increased by 10%. the usual speculative response to that question would then be that the heat has been absorbed by the oceans and will resurface sometime in the future, but again the ocean measurements to 700 meters depth have shown that the oceans have not been warming, they have in fact been coolling, but then the usual speculative response is that the heat must be below the ocean mix layer below 700 meters, but of course that cannot be the case either since co2 rereadiates in the long wave and is all absorbed in the first few microns of water, so heat from co2 infra red reradiation cannot penetarte the oeans at below 700 meters so would have to be first detected in the top 700 meters, so you are STUCK with the FACT that the man made warming hypothesis has failed, and as a bonus I've saved you from 20 pages of pointless discussion and meandering personal anecdotes.

Didn't read Post 31, did you? The average temperature rise from 1996 to 2011 was 0.0485 degrees C. per year. Try looking at those numbers again, then answer with some data of your own. Global warming continues. Looks like you're the one blathering on with irrelevant cherry-picking.

Doug

P.S.: Just ran the calculations: The 30-year average interval between major winter storms in the Ouachita National Forest increased from two years in 1780 to three years in 1900 to 5 years in 1980. That's from the McCurtain County Wilderness dataset. Climate change continues, too.

Doug

P.P.S.: Do you know how deep water is formed? Suggest you do some reading on thermohaline circulation.

Doug

Edited October 15, 2012 by Doug1029

[Little Fish]

It is not speculation to say that the heat is been sequestered in the deep ocean - it is recorded fact and accounts for the pause in surface warming over the last 16yrs. Global warming (warming of the globe as a whole) has not stopped but has continued as predicted;

http://www.sciencedi...375960112010389

Concentrating on the first 700meters is cherry picking the facts that suit a denialist agenda - nothing more. Little Fish should know this since we have discussed it at length and is ample evidence of his dishonesty.

Br Cornelius

there is nothing to answer. you claimed "global temperatures are rising". this is a present tense statement. since global temperatures have not risen for the last 16 years it is incorrect to say they ARE rising. it would have been correct to say they rose for 15 years, then did not rise for the next 16 years. but you can't say that because someone might ask you why the "global temperature" did not rise for 16 years at a time when co2 increased by 10%. the usual speculative response to that question would then be that the heat has been absorbed by the oceans and will resurface sometime in the future, but again the ocean measurements to 700 meters depth have shown that the oceans have not been warming, they have in fact been coolling, but then the usual speculative response is that the heat must be below the ocean mix layer below 700 meters, but of course that cannot be the case either since co2 rereadiates in the long wave and is all absorbed in the first few microns of water, so heat from co2 infra red reradiation cannot penetarte the oeans at below 700 meters so would have to be first detected in the top 700 meters, so you are STUCK with the FACT that the man made warming hypothesis has failed, and as a bonus I've saved you from 20 pages of pointless discussion and meandering personal anecdotes.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Little Fish

[Guest]

And thus you show your ignorance of ocean heat movement and circulation. The ocean is not static and mixes to its very depths - driven by wind, the rotation of the earth and by its interaction with the continents.

Unless you attempt to understand the behaviour of complex systems you will continue to make these simple gross errors in thinking. It is impossible to understand climate change with linear thinking.

But you know all this already because we have discussed it at length on more than one occasion.

Br Cornelius

Edited October 15, 2012 by Guest

[Doug1029]

and as a bonus I've saved you from 20 pages of pointless discussion and meandering personal anecdotes.

What do you care? You never read anything, anyway.

Doug

[Little Fish]

And thus you show your ignorance of ocean heat movement and circulation. The ocean is not static and mixes to its very depths - driven by wind, the rotation of the earth and by its interaction with the continents.

Unless you attempt to understand the behaviour of complex systems you will continue to make these simple gross errors in thinking. It is impossible to understand climate change with linear thinking.

But you know all this already because we have discussed it at length on more than one occasion.

Br Cornelius

there is nothing to answer. you claimed "global temperatures are rising". this is a present tense statement. since global temperatures have not risen for the last 16 years it is incorrect to say they ARE rising. it would have been correct to say they rose for 15 years, then did not rise for the next 16 years. but you can't say that because someone might ask you why the "global temperature" did not rise for 16 years at a time when co2 increased by 10%. the usual speculative response to that question would then be that the heat has been absorbed by the oceans and will resurface sometime in the future, but again the ocean measurements to 700 meters depth have shown that the oceans have not been warming, they have in fact been coolling, but then the usual speculative response is that the heat must be below the ocean mix layer below 700 meters, but of course that cannot be the case either since co2 rereadiates in the long wave and is all absorbed in the first few microns of water, so heat from co2 infra red reradiation cannot penetarte the oeans at below 700 meters so would have to be first detected in the top 700 meters, so you are STUCK with the FACT that the man made warming hypothesis has failed, and as a bonus I've saved you from 20 pages of pointless discussion and meandering personal anecdotes.

[Guest]

It is the oceans as a whole which have warmed - concentrating on the first 700m is a distraction. You should look at the thread on the Atlantic deep ocean circulation to see why it has probably gone deeper. More energy equals more mixing.

Br Cornelius