Global warming has STALLED since 1998

[Antares]

Earlier forecasts predicted a much steeper rise in global temperatures
But latest figures from Met Office show slower rise than previously warned

Figures raise questions about the true danger posed by greenhouse gasses


further in...

[COLOR="Blue"The Met Office has admitted that global warming has stalled.

Officials say that by 2017, temperatures will not have risen significantly for nearly 20 years.

They concede that previous forecasts were inaccurate – and have come under fire for attempting to ‘bury bad news’ by publishing the revised data on Christmas Eve [/COLOR]

Global warming: Met Office releases revised global temperature predictions showing planet is NOT rapidly heating up | Mail Online

Hmmmm

 

[ClosedCaption]

First they were wrong now they are right. Uh ok, how about Climate Change? No diff?

 

[Mustang]

The only thing that seems to have stalled is the credibility of conservative arguments against anthropological climate change.

 

[ClosedCaption]

He thinks that IF there is no increase in 20 years then increases in temp will never happen. How old is the planet earth? And how significant do you think 20 years is in comparison?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The only thing that seems to have stalled is the credibility of conservative arguments against anthropological climate change.

Where's yours? I mean, I can throw HADCRUT models at you, the Vostok and Dome C ice core data, and the Himalayan Glaciers gaffe at you. The IPCC is a sham, it's peer review process is shot, and you say that conservative arguments have stalled?

Come at me. Come on. I dare you. If you mention the name Al Gore in any of your arguments, you lose.

 

[TemplarKormac]

He thinks that IF there is no increase in 20 years then increases in temp will never happen. How old is the planet earth? And how significant do you think 20 years is in comparison?

The Earth has been in existence for 4.6 billion years, our models can only go as far back as 800k. And any temperature variation would be magnified due to the limited resolution of the climate models being produced. AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) proponents fail to realize that.

They'd rather stick to their hockey stick figures and doomsday scenarios instead.

 

[g5000]

In the headline "news" from the Daily Mail today: The real-life mermaid who uses her £10,000 tail to swim with sharks and jellyfish - and can hold her breath for FIVE minutes


I gather the Daily Mail is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hey, it's a better plan than "do nothing and see what happens"

 

[Antares]

LOL....right on cue...the response :"NUH-UH"!!!!!!!!

The problem with you people is that as usual you simply think something is "true" because you want it to be true.

Only a moron would attempt to change the entire World Economy based on the faulty info Al Gore and his ilk have given you.

You have ZERO answers other than to simply try and shout down the opponents.

 

[GHook93]

First they were wrong now they are right. Uh ok, how about Climate Change? No diff?

You do realize your trollish reply made no sense. Usually the sign of a lack of intelligent or you lost the argument! I believe it's both in your instance.

 

[g5000]

LOL....right on cue...the response :"NUH-UH"!!!!!!!!

The problem with you people is that as usual you simply think something is "true" because you want it to be true.

Only a moron would attempt to change the entire World Economy based on the faulty info Al Gore and his ilk have given you.

You have ZERO answers other than to simply try and shout down the opponents.

Actually, AGW proponents have reams and reams and reams of peer-reviewed scientific papers. So...nice try.


I believe global warming is happening. I have read quite a few of those papers, both pro and con, and the pro-global warming side is more convincing.


Does that mean I believe we should not allow the darkies to develop their countries the way we have ours? Nope.

Does that mean I believe we should ban incandescent light bulbs? Nope.

Does that mean I believe we should lipo Al Gore and make candles out of his prodigous girth? Well...

 

[ClosedCaption]

LOL....right on cue...the response :"NUH-UH"!!!!!!!!

The problem with you people is that as usual you simply think something is "true" because you want it to be true.

Only a moron would attempt to change the entire World Economy based on the faulty info Al Gore and his ilk have given you.

You have ZERO answers other than to simply try and shout down the opponents.

Explain then, how you believe their forecasts are now correct after admitting their previous forecasts were wrong?

Jesus, this is not about Al Gore...If Al Gore came out against suicide there would be streets filled with Right Wingers who offed themselves just to spite Al Gore

 

[Mustang]

In the headline "news" from the Daily Mail today: The real-life mermaid who uses her £10,000 tail to swim with sharks and jellyfish - and can hold her breath for FIVE minutes


I gather the Daily Mail is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around why it is that so many of the same people who deny climate change are also the ones who believe in alien abductions and Sasquatch sightings. I guess it could be their reading material. I mean, there does seem to be some commonality between the Daily Mail, the National Enquirer, World Net Daily, and NewsMax. I guess it's the downside of the 1st Amendment when people can publish anything, conflating fact and fiction in an effort to turn scientific inquiry into an intersection between popular culture fantasy fulfillment and a reality show where people get to vote on what's real and not real as if the votes themselves act as proof as to whether or not any idea has actual validity.

Perhaps these people believe that this would be the ultimate triumph of democracy: scientific truth by popular consensus.

 

[g5000]

In the headline "news" from the Daily Mail today: The real-life mermaid who uses her £10,000 tail to swim with sharks and jellyfish - and can hold her breath for FIVE minutes


I gather the Daily Mail is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around why it is that so many of the same people who deny climate change are also the ones who believe in alien abductions and Sasquatch sightings. I guess it could be their reading material. I mean, there does seem to be some commonality between the Daily Mail, the National Enquirer, World Net Daily, and NewsMax. I guess it's the downside of the 1st Amendment when people can publish anything, conflating fact and fiction in an effort to turn scientific inquiry into an intersection between popular culture fantasy fulfillment and a reality show where people get to vote on what's real and not real as if the votes themselves act as proof as to whether or not any idea has actual validity.

Perhaps these people believe that this would be the ultimate triumph of democracy: scientific truth by popular consensus.

Argumentum Ad Populum.

 

[TemplarKormac]

LOL....right on cue...the response :"NUH-UH"!!!!!!!!

The problem with you people is that as usual you simply think something is "true" because you want it to be true.

Only a moron would attempt to change the entire World Economy based on the faulty info Al Gore and his ilk have given you.

You have ZERO answers other than to simply try and shout down the opponents.

Actually, AGW proponents have reams and reams and reams of peer-reviewed scientific papers. So...nice try.


I believe global warming is happening. I have read quite a few of those papers, both pro and con, and the pro-global warming side is more convincing.


Does that mean I believe we should not allow the darkies to develop their countries the way we have ours? Nope.

Does that mean I believe we should ban incandescent light bulbs? Nope.

Does that mean I believe we should lipo Al Gore and make candles out of his prodigous girth? Well...

(My bold)

Global mean temperature has barely changed, and if anything, it may even start to drop in the next few years.

A sea-change on climate sensitivity at The Economist | Watts Up With That?

 

[ClosedCaption]

LOL....right on cue...the response :"NUH-UH"!!!!!!!!

The problem with you people is that as usual you simply think something is "true" because you want it to be true.

Only a moron would attempt to change the entire World Economy based on the faulty info Al Gore and his ilk have given you.

You have ZERO answers other than to simply try and shout down the opponents.

Actually, AGW proponents have reams and reams and reams of peer-reviewed scientific papers. So...nice try.


I believe global warming is happening. I have read quite a few of those papers, both pro and con, and the pro-global warming side is more convincing.


Does that mean I believe we should not allow the darkies to develop their countries the way we have ours? Nope.

Does that mean I believe we should ban incandescent light bulbs? Nope.

Does that mean I believe we should lipo Al Gore and make candles out of his prodigous girth? Well...

(My bold)

Global mean temperature has barely changed, and if anything, it may even start to drop in the next few years.

A sea-change on climate sensitivity at The Economist | Watts Up With That?

And that means what?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually, AGW proponents have reams and reams and reams of peer-reviewed scientific papers. So...nice try.


I believe global warming is happening. I have read quite a few of those papers, both pro and con, and the pro-global warming side is more convincing.


Does that mean I believe we should not allow the darkies to develop their countries the way we have ours? Nope.

Does that mean I believe we should ban incandescent light bulbs? Nope.

Does that mean I believe we should lipo Al Gore and make candles out of his prodigous girth? Well...

(My bold)

Global mean temperature has barely changed, and if anything, it may even start to drop in the next few years.

A sea-change on climate sensitivity at The Economist | Watts Up With That?

And that means what?

It means the whole AGW argument is wrong. The global mean temperature operates independently of human activity. That's what it means. We have introduced hundreds of millions of metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet the temperature has not risen, it has stalled, and is showing signs of dropping.

 

[konradv]

It means the whole AGW argument is wrong. The global mean temperature operates independently of human activity. That's what it means. We have introduced hundreds of millions of metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet the temperature has not risen, it has stalled, and is showing signs of dropping.

So, why don't get invoked natural cycles when there's a stall? The deniers keep saying proponents ignore cycles, when the real truth is the deniers only cite them when it's convenient. Cycles are a part of the deal and a slowdown in temperature rise has absolutely nothing to do with the known properties of GHGs. What happens when the cycle reverses? Warming comes back with a vengeance. It's that lack of logic on the part of the deniers that shows they don't really care about the science, only the politics.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Lets say they are right and temps haven't risen in 20 years. You're saying that since it hasn't risen in 20 years that means that global warming doesn't exist? 20 years isn't a lot of time for the earth. You're jumping the gun.

If you were talking about Humans 20 yrs is a lot...the Earth? that's like 20 seconds

 

[g5000]

(My bold)

Global mean temperature has barely changed, and if anything, it may even start to drop in the next few years.

A sea-change on climate sensitivity at The Economist | Watts Up With That?

And that means what?

It means the whole AGW argument is wrong.

No, that is not what it means. Did you even read your own link?

The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. It does not mean global warming is a delusion. Flat though they are, temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century remain almost 1°C above their level in the first decade of the 20th. But the puzzle does need explaining.

The global mean temperature operates independently of human activity. That's what it means.

Again, wrong.

Read the original source: Climate science: A sensitive matter | The Economist

And read the article below the "sea change" one in your link.

Climate change may be happening more slowly than scientists thought. But the world still needs to deal with it

In both articles, they acknowledge global climate change is still occuring and needs to be deal with. You are a fool for interpreting "more slowly" to mean "not happening".