Sunday, October 14, 2012

Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago

The Met Office,UK's National Weather Service, reports 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.


This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years, says the Daily Mail.




22 comments:

  1. Put a trend line on there. It isn't flat, its declining slightly. Its just that this year is the same as 1997. ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. No carbon tax to Al The Bloody Gore and the Rothschilds.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Overlay the solar activity cycle...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Global warming wasn't even here 16 years ago. At least not the way they want us to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I just wonder if there is any way that these "gloom and doomers" can be sued for fraud. They have cost the economy billions during the previous 16 years by holding up or shutting down numerous project that would have made the world more energy independant.

    ReplyDelete
  6. By William Spain

    CHICAGO (MarketWatch) -- Last September tied with the same month in 2005 as being the warmest on record, according to data released Monday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for the month was 1.21 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average of 60.1 degrees. The average global land surface temperature was the third highest for September on record, behind 2009 (highest) and 2005 (second highest), with widespread warmth around the globe. Among the areas seeing record warmth were east central Russia, along with parts of Venezuela and northern Brazil. "Nearly all of South America was much warmer than average as were western Australia and central to eastern Europe," NOAA said, adding that "far eastern Russia, a few regions in southern Africa, and parts of China were cooler than average."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Convenient how every time news that global warming comes out, the same day more BS comes out too? Sorry folks but it ties for the warmest. Who cares? If it was drastically warmer and the entire year was, that would be something, but 2012 isn't any warmer at all.

      Delete
  7. Wow, big surprise, huh? Who would have guessed the Global Warming hoax would have ever been exposed by...gads...SCIENCE?!

    ReplyDelete
  8. hoax? ... we still need to find out why the ice caps are melting and the ocean' rising ... than we need to find out what to do with all the displaced people once they are flooded out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ice is lighter (less dense) than liquid water. hence ice floats! When ice melts, the resulting liquid take less volume. How do the global warmers explain their idea that the oceans will rise when the volume is reduced. Calculate the change in the earth's mass if sea level were to rise the 26' or whatever they claim. Where will the necessary water to do this come from? What will happen to the earth's orbit in response to the increased mass?

      Delete
    2. Simple experiment for those who think the melting arctic ice will cause the ocean levels to rise: Fill a large container with ice cubes and water. Measure the water level height. Seal the container with plastic wrap (so no one can argue that evaporation had any discernable effect). Wait for the ice to melt. Measure the water level height again. Voila! The water level will be exactly the same. The problem with all the doom sayers is that, like the politicians, they are science morons or have a vested interest in the theories they are peddling.

      Delete
    3. The change in sea level comes from ice that is currently on land, not sea ice. Sea ice isn't included in those calculations. The shrinking of tropical and temperate glaciers, as well as the reduction of the Greenland ice sheet and changes in Antarctica (esp. West Antarctica and the Peninsula) are moving more ice from land to sea, where it melts and adds to overall ocean volume. Ice shelves only float at their edges, and the loss of ice shelves in the Antarctic Peninsula is speeding up flow from the land to the sea.

      The above graph was derived from measurements at 3,000 locations globally. Unfortunately, that's a fairly small sample. The real global temperature data is based on about 500 million (yes, about half a billion) averaged area-based temperature measurements per day across the entire planet, going back about 40 years. In recent years (15+), this has become 500,000,000 measurements twice a day. This gives something like 6 trillion measurements from a single series of sensors (AVHRR) over about 35 years. Other sensor data sets, added to that, give a great deal more data. That's the data that's used for looking at overall global warming.

      Changes to ice sheets on land can be tracked using Interferometric SAR, which detects vertical changes to about 1/4 inch. That allows volume changes in ice sheets to be monitored and change rates determined.

      Finally, the warming isn't always apparent at local points, and the change is far smaller than daily and annual fluctuations. The big changes are not so much in the lower atmosphere but in the sea. The overall affect is to change the drivers of large-scale weather, tending to shift weather patterns and accelerate climatic cycles, such as in Australia since 1980 (accelerated El Nino cycles and winter rains shifted south, leading to more frequent and deeper droughts in the southern half of the continent). A warmer ocean (just a degree or two) adds a lot of heat energy to the large and complex system of climate, which makes the system behave differently. What we are seeing is that there is more rain in the tropics and towards the poles, with associated warming in polar regions, and less rain in temperate regions. The changes in the water aspects of climate have a significant impact on local climate and weather, often far greater than that of global warming effects, and the water effects can lead to local and regional cooling.

      In summary, the changes are subtle and usually indirect. Although 'global warming' is the primary talking point, the actual impacts come through other processes driven by additional heat energy in the global climate system. There isn't much change in temperatures at given points, as the overall trend gets lost in local fluctuations; the main effects are seen in changes to how water is moved through the global climate system.

      Delete
    4. actually liquid water takes up more volume.... and there's lots of ice/glaciers on land that may melt in to the oceans. So.... yes the oceans may rise

      Delete
    5. Hey Woody,

      The ice caps and glaciers have been melting for over ten thousand years. As the mass of ice declines the rate of melting increases. Don't sell your beach property yet.

      Delete
    6. Anon - you say caps (plural) are melting; well, the North Pole did have a good strong melt this summer; however, re Antarctic ice extent, here's what NCDC said in Sept "The August 2012 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was 18.36 million square km (7.09 million square miles), 1.57 percent above average and the fourth largest (30th smallest) August sea ice extent in the 1979-2012 period of record." So, a mixed picture, at best. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2012/8

      Delete
    7. The ice from the last great “ice age” has been melting and receding for the last 10,000 years. [Except for the “little ice age”, 1100 to 1600] During this time the oceans have been rising at the rate of 3 inches per CENTURY . Solar activity is the main determining factor in this cycle. Any real scientist can calculate the amount of energy it would take to melt enough ice to raise the oceans any appreciable amount more than 3 inches per century. In 1988 Jim Hansen lied to Congress that the oceans would rise 10 feet by 2000 if we didn’t cut back our CO2 emissions.China has now surpassed us in CO2 emissions. All my friends who own ocean property along the Atlantic Ocean are checking to see if the Ocean is higher. Not by any noticeable amount.

      Delete
    8. The ice from the last great “ice age” has been melting and receding for the last 10,000 years. [Except for the “little ice age”, 1100 to 1600] During this time the oceans have been rising at the rate of 3 inches per CENTURY . Solar activity is the main determining factor in this cycle. Any real scientist can calculate the amount of energy it would take to melt enough ice to raise the oceans any appreciable amount more than 3 inches per century. In 1988 Jim Hansen lied to Congress that the oceans would rise 10 feet by 2000 if we didn’t cut back our CO2 emissions. All my friends who own ocean property along the Atlantic Ocean are checking to see if the Ocean is higher. Not by any noticeable amount.

      Delete
    9. Global Warming has moved from the area of science to the realm of a religious belief. In this respect there is no room for evidence that contradicts the belief that man is the cause of this "warming."
      Most of their predictions have not eventuated, and in fact the increase in CO2 levels have not been matched by corresponding increases in temperature. In fact, the lack of increasing temperatures disproves their modelling.

      Delete
  9. http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1668

    ReplyDelete
  10. The science seems to indicate that, over the last century, the earth has warmed (global warming). Whether or not it can be demonstrated that humans have caused the warming (anthropogenic global warming - AGW) remains a point of contention.

    Just because average temperatures appear (based upon the above graph) flat (since 1997) does not mean that the AGW hypothesis is false. It could be, for example, that there are natural phenomenon cooling the planet at the same time that humans are causing it to warm. (Although this seems unlikely.) However, the default position is to reject AGW until there is sufficient evidence to support it ( null hypothesis).

    This issue is far too complex for me (a layperson) to study. I can only hope that science will eventually discover the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Laypeople have to study it because government policy is enacted that restricts energy production and lowers our quality of life on the basis of this theory. And there's nothing inherently impartial about scientists. Their sources of funding create incentives to produce data that's favorable to their sponsors. The majority of scientists I believe are funded by government.

      Delete
  11. HMMMMM http://exopolitics.blogs.com/peaceinspace/2009/12/haarp-is-a-space-based-weapon-of-mass-destruction-and-must-be-banned-by-treaty.html

    http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm

    ReplyDelete