global warming may take a decade off

[[serious]]

a periodic cooling cycle caused by changes in ocean currents may give balance global warming for the next 10 years. the cooling cycle is temporary and the period after that will see even more rapid warming putting the overall warming trend back on schedule.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/mobile/bbc_news/sci_nature/737/73763/story7376301.shtml?

[waits for "science makes accurate predictions and thus it must be wrong!"]

 

[[serious]]

Editing this post to make a list of my successfully prognosticated "science makes accurate predictions and thus it must be wrong!" examples:
Global warming takes a pause ... Al Gore, where are you, LOL?
no AGW scientist saw the "Pause Coming"
A list of excuses or reasons for The Great Pause that Alarmists have been stating through research papers are adding up.
the temperature has leveled off. If the CO2 continues to rise then why isn't the temperature following?
Networks Fail to Mention ‘Lull’ in Warming
As anyone can see there is a noticable drop in global temperature since the year 2000. Does this mean that GW is winding down and what does this say about AGW ? Co2 levels remain at an upward trend.
Let's see...no warming since 1998...How many decades should we wait before we call it a 'trend reversal.'
why since the year 2000 has the Earth stopped warming?

 

[Open]

Bait taken.
Global warming is a political movement and a fraud.....

OK, back to bed.....

 

[_Zap_]

what? no interest? come on, we have enough global warming deniers here that someone's got to take the bait...

Anyone who uses the words "global warming deniers" already has far too much of a bias to be swayed by rational debate. There's absolutely no point in arguing with a true believer of the Goracle.

 

[Open]

Quite true!
Funny. When I debate with 'Pro-global warming' persons, they tend to shy away rfom science. Or at least be very selective about it.
There is plent information out there, but not a lot of unbiased debate.

 

[Open]

PS Before anyone blows a gasket, my first thread was meant as a joke.
Whilst I am open minded on the matter, I do not see sufficient proof to convince me that changes in global are man made, or even uner our influence.
I'm all for conservation of resources and remewal energy (that makes sense inthe long term), but not convinced by the evidence for man made global warming.

Phew!

 

[[serious]]

Bump, Since this has come up again, I just want to remind everyone that this was known about by real scientists well prior to all the current nonsense.

Also, We totally called what the response would be from the right.

 

[[serious]]

Hey, guess what we have a thread about again? That's right! the global warming "pause."

 

[stamperben]

Does this mean the glaciers will come back?

Images from USGS

 

[iluvatar5150]

When I started reading this thread, I didn't realize it was from 2008. Lulz. This makes me happy.

 

[1Sam15]

Anyone who uses the words "global warming deniers" already has far too much of a bias to be swayed by rational debate. There's absolutely no point in arguing with a true believer of the Goracle.

How about arguing with those of us who have no interest whatsoever about what Al Gore says?

I follow the SCIENCE, not the talking heads. Al Gore is a meatpuppet.

But I generally kind of agree with a dislike of the word "denier" since they are a vanishing species these days. They took a hit when the warming data become incontrovertible a few years back, now most are just "skeptical" of whether mankind is responsible.

I prefer to use the term "skeptic" but even then I feel uncomfortable because skeptics often have a rational basis and technical understanding of what they are skeptical of.

Most people on discussion forums who are "Skeptics" appear to have almost no understanding of the science.

I wish there was a better word.

 

[1Sam15]

Quite true!
Funny. When I debate with 'Pro-global warming' persons, they tend to shy away rfom science.

You won't find that from all of us. Many of us actually have taken a long look at the data. Some of us have even done some of the calculations ourselves and graphed the data for ourselves.

There is plent information out there, but not a lot of unbiased debate.

There IS plenty of info out there and sadly the debate isn't really unbiased because the data shows a pretty clear picture. It's hard to debate against facts.

 

[[serious]]

PS Before anyone blows a gasket, my first thread was meant as a joke.
Whilst I am open minded on the matter, I do not see sufficient proof to convince me that changes in global are man made, or even uner our influence.
I'm all for conservation of resources and remewal energy (that makes sense inthe long term), but not convinced by the evidence for man made global warming.

Phew!

Well, we have data on what we are doing.

The world uses 89,271,200 barrels of oil per day.
8,000,000,000 cubic meters of natural gas.
16,000,000 tonnes of coal

That adds about 30,000,000,000 metric tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere per year just from fossil fuels.

The absorption spectrum of CO2 is accurately known. Add to this other CO2 sources and other man made greenhouse gases and we get a calculable first order impact. Where things get a bit fuzzier is the second order effects like methane degassing, increased water vapor positive feedback, decreased albedo effect from decreased ice cover, and so on.

 

[MachZer0]

The flip side of the coin may be that the "global warning" stage may just be a case of the new ice age we learned about in the 70's taking some time off

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Get back to me after the next barley harvest in Greenland.

 

[USincognito]

The flip side of the coin may be that the "global warning" stage may just be a case of the new ice age we learned about in the 70's taking some time off

"We" learned about no such thing. There was a couple of popular press articles that have achieved near mythological proportion with denialists.

The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers – by David Kirtley – Greg Laden's Blog

...one of the fake-skeptics’ favorite myths: The 1970s Ice Age Scare. It goes something like this:

- In the 1970s the scientists were all predicting global cooling and a future ice age.
- The media served as the scientists’ lapdog parroting the alarming news.
- The ice age never came—the scientists were dead wrong.
- Now those same scientists are predicting global warming (or is it “climate change” now?)

The entire purpose of this myth is to suggest that scientists can’t be trusted, that they will say/claim/predict whatever to get their names in the newspapers, and that the media falls for it all the time. They were wrong about ice ages in the 1970s, they are wrong now about global warming.​

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

RealClimate: The global cooling myth

 

[USincognito]

Get back to me after the next barley harvest in Greenland.

Awesome. Denmark will be able to produce a few thousand bushels to make up for the 10s of millions lost in Sahel region countries like Mali, Senegal, Sudan and Ethiopia.

That should do wonders for world stability.

 

[MachZer0]

"We" learned about no such thing. There was a couple of popular press articles that have achieved near mythological proportion with denialists.

The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers – by David Kirtley – Greg Laden's Blog

...one of the fake-skeptics’ favorite myths: The 1970s Ice Age Scare. It goes something like this:

- In the 1970s the scientists were all predicting global cooling and a future ice age.
- The media served as the scientists’ lapdog parroting the alarming news.
- The ice age never came—the scientists were dead wrong.
- Now those same scientists are predicting global warming (or is it “climate change” now?)

The entire purpose of this myth is to suggest that scientists can’t be trusted, that they will say/claim/predict whatever to get their names in the newspapers, and that the media falls for it all the time. They were wrong about ice ages in the 1970s, they are wrong now about global warming.​

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

RealClimate: The global cooling myth

Hmmm. An unsourced pie chart. Why am I unconvinced?

 

[stamperben]

Hmmm. An unsourced pie chart. Why am I unconvinced?

Perhaps because you're swimming in a river in Egypt, DeNial?

 

[1Sam15]

Hmmm. An unsourced pie chart. Why am I unconvinced?

It's based on a 2008 paper by Peterson. You can find it HERE published by the American Meteorological Society.

(Stuff like this is pretty well known among people familiar with the topic.)