Global warming stopped 16 years ago

[SigniferOne]

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

• The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
• This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...=feeds-newsxml


Also, a National Geographic article:

Antarctic Sea Ice Hits Record ... High?



Sea ice extent around Antarctica on September 26. Yellow line shows median September sea ice extent from 1979 to 2000.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...lobal-warming/

Thoughts?

See my thread from 2008:
2008, The year man-made global warming was disproved

It seems it was as true then as it is now.
It is driving environmentalists crazy that they can't run Western economies off a cliff anymore.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Thought number 1:

Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’

And he is a absolutely right:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Source: Nasa Earth Observatory, Nasa figure adapted from Coddard Instintute for Space Studies



Thought number 2:

The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.

They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.

This is myopic. The oil resources are limited. We have are very close the point of peak production judging from Hubbert's 30 years' timelag between discovery of an oil field and reaching maximum production. Maybe progress in extraction technology will push the amount of resevres by a little, yet for now their static reach is estimated at 40-60 years. The point is that transition from fossil fuels to sustainable sources of energy has to be made at some point regardless of considerations about global warming. The sooner, the cheaper. Better to pay a subsidy of 100 pounds now, than pay thousands of dollars due to increased fuel prices later. Though I am not sure how one can pay subsidies in a liberalised electricity market.

[Squiggle]

Thought number 2:
This is myopic. The oil resources are limited. We have are very close the point of peak production judging from Hubbert's 30 years' timelag between discovery of an oil field and reaching maximum production. Maybe progress in extraction technology will push the amount of resevres by a little, yet for now their static reach is estimated at 40-60 years. The point is that transition from fossil fuels to sustainable sources of energy has to be made at some point regardless of considerations about global warming. The sooner, the cheaper. Better to pay a subsidy of 100 pounds now, than pay thousands of dollars due to increased fuel prices later. Though I am not sure how one can pay subsidies in a liberalised electricity market.

1) We've been told were about to run out of oil since we first started using it. Numbers always go up. Not saying the current count is wrong, im saying be skeptical and not hysterical.

2) How are subsidies good for innovating new, fresher technologies? Guaranteed money from the Government, which has no profit incentive nor any specialized knowledge in the fields? Easy money doesnt produce results, it produces stultification. If that money was returned to the private individual we would see higher rates of private investment in good Green companies, as opposed to the ones that are A) friends with the Government and B) Given the track record, seemingly incompetent to all hell.

[alhoon]

1) We've been told were about to run out of oil since we first started using it. Numbers always go up. Not saying the current count is wrong, im saying be skeptical and not hysterical.

Waaaait there.
Back in the 60s they were saying "oil will finish in the 80s!" and in essence it did run out in 1981. In a couple of years oil price jumped up what? 3 times over?
The same happened more or less in the recent oil crisis of 2004. Within a year oil jumped up from 15-17$/ barrel to about 80-100$ !

Do you think there are many reserves left that the cost to produce the oil is 10$/barrel to make it profitable to sell at 15$/barrel?
No, there are not. Oil in the sense of 2003 has mostly run out, as predicted.

What was NOT predicted is that the world will keep moving with oil at 100$/barrel. It was considered unimaginable when I was in my 3rd year in the Technical university (2001) oil prices over 25$/year. We considered it would cause an economic collapse worse than the economic crisis of 2007.

[motiv-8]

1) We've been told were about to run out of oil since we first started using it. Numbers always go up. Not saying the current count is wrong, im saying be skeptical and not hysterical.

Timeoleon is not being hysterical, he's being completely realistic. On the other hand, if you would like to prove that "we've been told" since the end of the 19th Century we were imminently running out, that'd be awesome. Cause, you know, Hubbert wrote in 1956.

In reality, Hubbert missed his mark by only a year. He said US oil production would peak in 1971, when in fact it was 1970. The only question now is how long we can stave off the inevitable plunge into the abyss, how sharp the downward curve has been. That's the only number that's being revised. It's only a matter of time, and it's directly correlated to several important numbers -- population growth, and economic activity. It's not hysteria, it's arithmetic, and it's not on our side.

2) How are subsidies good for innovating new, fresher technologies? Guaranteed money from the Government, which has no profit incentive nor any specialized knowledge in the fields?

A couple things. Do you understand how subsidies work? And are you aware that oil has been a subsidized industry for decades and decades? Almost a century really.

Government subsidies isn't money given away willy nilly, it requires proof of concept and a plan for profitability. That's why subsidies for companies that fail, end. Kind of like how capital works in the private sector. And when that capital is to begin with dried up because of economic conditions, government subsidy becomes a GREAT way to jump-start projects.

Easy money doesnt produce results, it produces stultification.

Empty bandying. Prove it. Going to be hard considering that in reality the US Government has been subsidizing farmers for almost a century in order to, among other things, prevent overproduction.

If that money was returned to the private individual we would see higher rates of private investment in good Green companies, as opposed to the ones that are A) friends with the Government and B) Given the track record, seemingly incompetent to all hell.

Actually, A) they're not friends with the government, they've provided proof of concept and a plan, and B) what track record are you talking about? The three out of the twenty-six green companies which received government-secured loans that have failed? Is this where you're going to rant about Solyndra and pretend it represents the totality of subsidizing, its results, and green energy production?

It's an incredibly simple thing, Squiggle. You plan ahead for challenges you know will exist. It might cost more in the short-term, but it's going to save your ass in the long run. Basic principle for an incredibly large amounts of things in life. Why in the world should we keep pushing for sources of energy that we KNOW, WE KNOW for a fact are going to run out sooner rather than later, that are ONLY going to get more difficult to find and produce and pay for, when we could be investing in sources that AREN'T going to run out, that have ONLY a downward curve in cost, and that will be able to keep pace with the arithmetic of population growth and economic needs. Give me a good reason.

[PointOfViewGun]

I always find it appalling that we need doomsday scenarios to care more about the environment.

It is driving environmentalists crazy that they can't run Western economies off a cliff anymore.

So, environmentalists are just a bunch of anarchists who wants collapse of Western economies?

[alhoon]

I always find it appalling that we need doomsday scenarios to care more about the environment.

That.

So, environmentalists are just a bunch of anarchists who wants collapse of Western economies?

And that.

Also, I don't trust that the average temperature hasn't risen the past 16 years. A couple of years ago we had the warmest summer/June/August/whatever recorded. And a few years before that, we ALSO had the warmest summer/July/whatever recorded. And a few years before that, we had... you guessed, the warmest summer/July/whatever recorded.

BTW: The temperature of the earth should be... decreasing actually. We're entering a mini iceage according to what a professor of mine said in the university. Should hold for a few decades and should lower the average temperature of the earth. Eventually, when we stop warming it.

[Confederate Jeb]

So, environmentalists are just a bunch of anarchists who wants collapse of Western economies?

That or want a larger government with more power and regulations.

[Astaroth]

Wow, what a complete failure of an opening post. Let's make short work of this...

#1: Your first source is the DailyFail. That alone speaks volumes. But that's not all...

#2: They are basing their "article" (it's laughable to even call it that) on a Met Office report. Unfortunately, according to Met Office, the DailyFail is wrong. See here on the Met Office's official blog.

#3: If you had actually read the National Geographic article, you might've noticed this:

If the world was warming up uniformly, you would expect the sea ice cover to decrease in the Antarctic, but it's not. The reason for that is because the Antarctic is cooler than the rest of the world. It's warming up as well but not as fast as other places.
So you have the warming world and a cold Antarctica, and the difference between the two is increasing. That makes the winds around Antarctica move a little bit faster. There's also a difference that comes from the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere in the Antarctic, which makes the stratosphere colder.
(...)


Really, it's consistent with our understanding of a warming world. Some of the regional details are not something we can easily predict. But the general trends of decay of the sea ice cover and decay of the Greenland ice sheets and ice caps is in line with what we expect.
The Antarctic has not been warming up as fast as the models thought. It's warming up, but slower. So it's all consistent with a warming planet.

But don't let the facts get in your way of creating a blatantly false and misleading OP.

[Father Jack]

#2: They are basing their "article" (it's laughable to even call it that) on a Met Office report. Unfortunately, according to Met Office, the DailyFail is wrong. See here on the Met Office's official blog.

Well that pretty much kills the OP. Good find.

[Gatsby]

Kinda embarrassing thread.

[Irishman]

But don't let the facts get in your way of creating a blatantly false and misleading OP.

But, how else can we deny global warming?

[Stario]

Global warming and cooling is cyclic; in the past earth has experienced both colder & hotter periods. In the long run this may mean changes to areas of fertility- areas that are open for agriculture at present might not be in the future, but at the same time new areas of agriculture will open etc. Indeed climate change may trigger large migrations in the future, albeit humans will simply adapt & adjust (similarly our ancestors survived the last ice age). My point being that periods of warming and cooling is a natural phenomenon.

There is also evidence (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/), that our sun is going through a slower cycle of activity, which could mean we are in fact heading into a mini Ice Age. The last period of slow activity; Maunder Minimum, resulted in an Ice Age lasting approximately 300 years.

I really look at the "Global warming" scaremongers and take it all with a grain of salt. However, what I do not appreciative is my power & grocery bills increasing disproportionately to my wages & inflation- for which I put the blame on carbon tax.

However, this could potentially go even deeper, whereby my way of living/my personal freedoms could be at jeopardy. One example- I've recently read an newspaper article regarding a proposal of a type of carbon tax on personal vehicles (apparently a bill is circulating in the Australian senate), to put a carbon tax on all personal vehicles/automobiles in the very near future. Such a bill/legislation could have devastating consequences on those already struggling to keep their heads above water in the current economic climate. The other fundamental question to ask is just how far are the "global warming scaremongers" willing to go in order to push their own agendas, & to control my way of life!?

[Muizer]

Hard to say what, if anything, this means. At the basis, at the heart of the theory of man made global warming are two assumptions: Firstly, manmade emissions causes a rise of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and secondly, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I don't think either has been disproven yet. I wouldn't be surprised if climate scientists' current models about the impact would be proven wrong. Even with the benefit of hindsight it's quite difficult to explain major climate trends on geological timescales and predicting future climate change on short timescales surely is much harder. All that said, reading the article you'd almost think the authors believe "global warming" means "rise of global surface temperature". I don't think climate scientists were quite that stupid though.

[nce_wht_guy]

Try harder next time, Sig.

[motiv-8]

Best of the Best?

[Admiral Piett]

Global warming is happening, but it's not all that important considering mankind has little control over such things.

[Col. Tartleton]

Look everyone, an estimated half degree celsius (1 degree fahrenheit) change in temperature over 130 years...

[Seether]

Look everyone, an estimated half degree celsius (1 degree fahrenheit) change in temperature over 130 years...

Which means what, exactly? During the Ice Age, the overall global temperature was only lowered by around 5°C (about 9°F). So while 1°F in 130 years doesn't seem like a lot, in reality it is and, if the trend continues, could be an issue 200 years from now.

Not saying I support or don't support global warming, just pointing out your silliness.

[Col. Tartleton]

I think the long term evidence shows that we're cooler than we might otherwise be.