Absence of Global Warming 'may be set to continue' – UK Met Office. Or it may not.

a reply to: Cinrad

That's akin to arguing that since it's turning autumn here in North America, it must be autumn everywhere else on the planet. It is called GLOBAL warming and not LOCAL warming for a reason. It means that when you take the GLOBAL AVERAGE of temperatures, we see a clear increase over the past 20 years. While it's true that we have been experiencing colder winters here in North America recently, that doesn't mean that other parts of the world aren't experiencing the hottest summers on record. When you average it all out, the global temperature of the earth as a whole has been steadily increasing over the past 20 years.

The phrasing "global warming" has been changed to "climate change" mostly due to the fact that the average person does not understand global changes vs regional changes. Like what I emphasized above, many assume that since it's been colder in their local areas, therefore, global warming must not be occurring. This couldn't be further than the truth. The lack of understanding of the average person has been further demonstrated in the fast food industry:

One of the most vivid arithmetic failings displayed by Americans occurred in the early 1980s, when the A&W restaurant chain released a new hamburger to rival the McDonald's Quarter Pounder. With a third-pound of beef, the A&W burger had more meat than the Quarter Pounder; in taste tests, customers preferred A&W's burger. And it was less expensive. A lavish A&W television and radio marketing campaign cited these benefits. Yet instead of leaping at the great value, customers snubbed it.

Only when the company held customer focus groups did it become clear why. The Third Pounder presented the American public with a test in fractions. And we failed. Misunderstanding the value of one-third, customers believed they were being overcharged. Why, they asked the researchers, should they pay the same amount for a third of a pound of meat as they did for a quarter-pound of meat at McDonald's. The "4" in "¼," larger than the "3" in "⅓," led them astray.

Source: What's bigger: 1/3 pound burgers or 1/4 pound burgers?

No one wants to see a carbon tax (myself included), but that doesn't mean that we have to bury our heads in the sand and pretend it isn't happening. As you suggested, what we have to do is explore and develop alternative renewable sources of energy. However, the oil monopoly and other interest groups would not want that (along with a carbon tax) and have often proven to be the distributors and benefactors of spreading misinformation on the global warming issue.

a reply to: MysterX

yes it just seems to fit allowing for some natural lag in the system
it does seem that the warming trend seemed to get going shortly (at least in the UK and Europe) after
the large scale switch from coal to gas and nuclear for power generation and the clean air legislation
that finished off large scale use of coal for home heating. and capping limits on emissions from industrial sites.

i just thing its a wonderful irony that in the move to improve the planet for us me may be making it worse for us

a reply to: DJW001

Lol, we can't paint the roads you tard, enough folks die already, painted wet surface...... Like driving on ice!!!

Do you even think before you type?

That was the single worst idea I have ever heard today fight AGW!!!

Something I've noticed which is hardly mentioned. The globe is warming sure but it has slowed right down over the past 18-20 years. None of the climate models have predicted this.
They are still saying we are on track for dangerous 4 degree C warming. But the models used to predict that must be wrong if they failed to predict the slow down. So I don't trust the predictions and don't think they really know what will happen.

So, why is there so much ice at the poles these days? even above average in winter? I can only go by the daily updates I get in my mailbox, I really don't trust the MSN.

Its like greenpeace screaming about the polar bears dying off, yet the USGS says there are 25,000 of them, greenpeace says the Arctic ice is disappearing, yet I get reports saying its higher than average for this time of year, I don't trust greenpeace either, now.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Cinrad

The current warm phase is now 20 years long and historical precedent suggests a return to relatively cool conditions could occur within a few years

Already is here in Georgia , USA

Best weather I have felt in a long time in GA this past weekend! I was outside with the kids for most of the time.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Our understanding of it evolved because our science got better.

Even so, the science is still in its infancy, and we are a very long ways off from having a good understanding of the mechanisms that cause major changes in the earth's climate.

Implying that the massive amounts of pollution we produce couple with our increasingly destructive behavior in regards to natural systems that keep pollution in check, isn't affecting climate is ridiculous.

It may not be the single cause, or the greatest of a multitude of causes, but it is no doubt a cause of Climate Change. There is no way that any person can say that deforestation, plus ocean acidity increases plus dirtying up the atmosphere isn't a cause of climate change.

I would argue more that it's a minor ingredient in the recipe--it's not the yeast that makes the dough rise, or the noodles in the spaghetti, but maybe it's that tiny dash of sugar in the spaghetti sauce that reduces the acidity of the tomatoes.

I would argue that it's more of a problem for localized ecosystems than it is a problem or catalyst for global climate changes. Pollution sucks, for sure, but saying we produce a "massive amount" is a tad hyperbolic when you consider exactly what the percentage of said pollution is relative to the totality of the environment into which it is being released.

I don't think taxing ourselves into oblivion is the answer either. But we can take Germany's route and invest heavily in renewable.

"Investing" at a federal level IS taxation...all of the "investing" going on by the U.S. government where they pick who wins, who loses, and who they think will win (but actually loses) is exactly what isn't the answer--taxing ourselves into oblivion.

But, look, the bottom line is the climate-change debate is that it is intellectually dishonest for people to claim that the globe is warming (it's not everywhere) and to pretend that there is any "science" that is "settled" in conjunction with our understanding of the catalysts that make our climates change. Therefore, it's the best policy, IMO, that governments do "common-sense" things that don't involve exorbitant amounts of taxing that can help keep our environmental impact at a reasonable minimum, but stop chasing the white rabbit of "renewable energy" with tax-payer dollars and just have faith that, if there is a need, someone will fill it with a new invention or process that has viability and less environmental impact. If there really isn't a need, then it won't happen, and maybe that's a sign that all of the efforts to promote the-end-is-nigh propaganda over climate change isn't as effective or accurate as they think it is.

a reply to: johnwick

Lol, we can't paint the roads you tard, enough folks die already, painted wet surface...... Like driving on ice!!!

That depends on what kind of paint you use, doesn't it? There are paints that contain granules of sand specifically formulated to improve traction on ramps and stairs.

Do you even think before you type?

You obviously don't.

a reply to: johnwick

And don't forget, that we just don't understand science if we don't agree....

That depends on why we disagree, doesn't it? Oh, wait! You're just making a Strawman Argument. Never mind.

Even though it is obvious I know a great deal about science, more so in many more categories of Science than most of the AGW supporters on this forum for sure!!!

Really? I guess we'll just have to take your word on that, I guess.

Yet we are just science deniers, even though AGW goes against the entire scientific method at all times.

In what way? It collects data, interprets it and makes predictions. If these predictions ail, it revises its model. How, exactly, does that go against the scientific method "at all times?"

It automatically assumes man is at fault, and that we can stop warming cooling cycles that have existed far longer than we have....

No it doesn't. It studies the long term cycles and tries to determine their cause, like the Milankovic Cycle. However, once these natural causes are taken into account, there remains a trend of increasing global mean temperature which happens to correlate well with the amount of carbon dioxide humanity has been releasing into the atmosphere over time, and CO2 is a known "greenhouse gas." The greenhouse effect is real.

But let's just ignore the fact and ice age ending means the glaciers necessarily melt.... " but the glaciers are melting!!! "

Ya they should!!

And your point is...?

Or the always popular " but the warming has never happened this fast!! "

But that can't be proven, because there are no accurate temp records for anything but modern times.

Since you know more about science here than anyone else, I don't have to explain what proxy measures are. You know, ice core samples, tree rings...

And without accurate temp data you can't measure tenth of a degree by any other method period.

... studies of ancient diatom fossils....

Of course this all ignores the fact, the warming has stopped for well over 2 decades now, in complete defiance of their " climate models" that have always been wrong in every long term prediction.

Stopped? Or slowed down?

There isn't even a scientific basis to form a out of control warming conclusion from.

So you don't believe in computer modelling?

Because it has never happened, not even when co2 was in the thousands.

What has never happened? There has never been an inter-glacial period? The ice caps still reach all the way to Mississippi?

So scientifically, how they even make this absurd claim is beyond me.....

As an expert in science, surely you understand that they collect data, interpret it by forming a hypothesis, use this hypothesis to create a model which they can then use to run simulations on computers. If the predictions made by those models are not accurate, the model gets refined.

Because all the actual evidence says new co2 is good for life on this planet.

Correct! It's great for life! More plants mean more food for animals, warmer temperatures mean more energy, so the animals can grow larger. A warm climate is much, much better for the planet and its life than a glaciation. The only problem is that humans have built cities near the oceans, which will rise, and expect a temperate range of temperatures which will need to be produced artificially. Global warming is good for the Earth, bad for human civilization.

In fact thecarbon we ate releasing was already in the atmosphere during the greatest abundance of life in the planets history!!

Re-unite Gondwanaland!

So how is AGW in any way based on science and not faith?

Observation, data, hypothesis, model, prediction, observe, revise. In what way is it based on faith?

Because I don't see the science, I see scams, bs, lies, and worst off by the standards of Science assumptions....

Nothing more

You must be looking in the mirror then.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: johnwick

Lol, we can't paint the roads you tard, enough folks die already, painted wet surface...... Like driving on ice!!!

That depends on what kind of paint you use, doesn't it? There are paints that contain granules of sand specifically formulated to improve traction on ramps and stairs.

Do you even think before you type?

You obviously don't.

Lol

Thanks I needed a good laugh!!!

How much will it cost and what are the environmental impacts of painting millions if miles of roads?

Oh didn't consider that did you?

How about the shear amount of carbon released by the trucks to haul and paint them?

Oh didn't consider that either huh?

Lol I thought about all of that as soon as I read your post.



And the paint your are talking about is very expensive BTW , lol, we couldn't pay for that in a thousand years

a reply to: johnwick

How much will it cost and what are the environmental impacts of painting millions if miles of roads?

Did you know that some countries actually engage in road maintenance? The cost of painting the whole roadway instead of just the line down the middle would be a little more expensive, perhaps, but it would be cheaper than pumping out the New York subways again. New roads, of course, would be built with a higher albedo material to begin with; ferro-concrete perhaps.

Oh didn't consider that did you?

Of course I did. How stupid does someone have to be to even think that wouldn't be taken into account.

How about the shear amount of carbon released by the trucks to haul and paint them?

It probably wouldn't be much different than the amount the road maintenance trucks are already contributing. Of course, if the fleet were converted to natural gas or electricity, it might contribute even less.

Oh didn't consider that either huh?

What kind of a moron doesn't understand how public works projects work.

Lol I thought about all of that as soon as I read your post.

And I thought about all that before I wrote it. You would be wise to stop making a fool of yourself.

And the paint your are talking about is very expensive BTW , lol, we couldn't pay for that in a thousand years

You just mentioned a very specific number. Why don't you look up the cost of the paint, figure out how much roadway needs to be covered, then back up your claim.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I would argue more that it's a minor ingredient in the recipe--it's not the yeast that makes the dough rise, or the noodles in the spaghetti, but maybe it's that tiny dash of sugar in the spaghetti sauce that reduces the acidity of the tomatoes.

You would argue? Why don't you argue? Present some data instead of making broad, subjective statements.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Cinrad

I"m still amazed that people think Global Warming actually means the world is just 'warming' all together, all at the same time.

This about sums up what people who rail against climate change believe. They don't understand the science, don't care to learn apparently, so they use nonsensical stories and sources to prove their point.

Which is wrong.

The Earth is suffering from CLIMATE CHANGE. This means it can be colder or warmer. It means that we are to experience more SEVERE weather be it hot or cold. Which we have been, increasingly, over the last 20 years.

And like...98% of scientists agree. There were temperate records all over the world in the last 2 years.

2014 was the Hottest Year on Record!

It's not a theory. The reasons WHY are still up for debate sure, but Climate Change is real, and it's happening right now.

~Tenth

98% of scientists do not agree. 98% of the scientists working for the IPCC, whose job it is to be a liberal mouthpiece in support of man-made climate change agree. To date there has been no poll among the scientific community at large concerning how many scientists are in support of man-made climate change. I doubt there ever will be.

There are 2500 "scientific expert reviewers" working for the IPCC. If you would like you can read an interesting paper about how the IPCC fudges numbers here:
mclean.ch...

This is a petition that urges the United States to reject the Kyoto proposal and states that there is no convincing scientific evidence that hydrocarbon emissions harm the environment. It is signed by over 31,000 American scientists.
www.oism.org...

So that's 31,000 versus the IPCC's 2,500. I'm sure any number of other liberal scientific groups could be found in support of man-made climate change, but perhaps we can all agree that "98% of scientists agree" is a bogus number.

a reply to: peskyhumans
Nope.

The Petition Project is a bunch of BS and not made of of actual climate scientist.

www.skepticalscience.com...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

"Investing" at a federal level IS taxation...all of the "investing" going on by the U.S. government where they pick who wins, who loses, and who they think will win (but actually loses) is exactly what isn't the answer--taxing ourselves into oblivion.

My comments were more about the Fed gov not giving subsidies to oil companies and giving them to renewable energy partners willing to put up the capital to create the projects. Germany did it without bankrupting itself and now enjoys over 30% of it's entire grid as renewable.

Obviously it's somewhat apples and oranges due to demographics etc, but you see what I mean.

Let me stress that the science is obviously mostly above my head. I grasp enough of it to believe that our impact is there and must be dealt with accordingly, but I don't claim to know what the solution is beyond a general move towards renewable energy.

I am 100% against carbon credit systems, tax etc. All are just opportunities for people to make money and do not at all solve the problem.

~Tenth

a reply to: peskyhumans

So that's 31,000 versus the IPCC's 2,500. I'm sure any number of other liberal scientific groups could be found in support of man-made climate change, but perhaps we can all agree that "98% of scientists agree" is a bogus number.

You're right: it is bogus because of its spurious specificity. Here's a better breakdown:

www.skepticalscience.com...

Depending on what method you use, the figure can best be expressed as "between 80 and 98%."

a reply to: MysterX

The importance comes into the equation when our taxes go through the roof, or our utility bills, motoring costs are crippling the individual family or whole nations are tied up in carbon credits / selling and buying the right to release carbon, all on the backs of the misnomer that climate change is down to us...it isn't and never was.

So if I shoot someone dead, can I say that 'we kill each other all the time' or do I go to jail for my crime?

Obviously I would go to jail. If you want to believe in the folly that the climate will change so quickly and rapidly without our input then that's your choice. And hindsight and taxes will not help us.

a reply to: DJW001

Just bring out facts, johnwick is notorious for pulling the hit and run on these climate threads with the typical anti-science denial of what we observing, essentially Heartland Institutes talking points, and then disappears once called out for all the BS.

It is almost like he'll post exlusively on the first couple of pages and will rarely if ever join one of these discussions if he can't get his clever arguments in before the actual scientists can come in a clear things up.

One thing is for certain, AGW and human induced climate change has become a debate where both sides often have no clue about the science that is being debated and there are many dishonest debate tactics used on both sides.

I personally see the AGW supporters tend to bring a lot more science and data to the debate, where as those who think AGW is bogus often base their arguments on casting doubt on the uncertainty on the science.

One thing is for certain, there has been a lot of money dumped by the Oil companies by 'free market think tanks' to spread information that confuses the general public, the layman on what the science and scientists actually say about global warming, climate change, and the enormous impact our addiction to burning fossil fuels has on this little blue planet.

a reply to: johnwick

If you want the intellectuals here to take you seriously, you need not resort to ridicule and name calling to get your point across.

I am baffled that you can get so much applause in such a short amount of time.....

The human race is indeed causing changes to this planet. If one can not simply step outside and see all of man's 'progress' and make the logical deduction that we are causing great changes to this planet then one is truly blind.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

The Earth is suffering from CLIMATE CHANGE. This means it can be colder or warmer. It means that we are to experience more SEVERE weather be it hot or cold. Which we have been, increasingly, over the last 20 years.

So, the world "suffers" from completely natural cycles that have always existed? Honestly, it make me angry what this new age religion has done to science.