The First Crack in the Iceberg Of Global Warming...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Surprise, no increase in global temps since 1998!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346310,00.html

U.N. Forecasters: Global Temperatures to Decrease

Friday, April 04, 2008



Average global temperatures in 2008 are forecast to be lower than in previous years, thanks to the cooling effect of the ocean current in the Pacific, U.N. meteorologists say.

The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said it was likely that La Nina, an abnormal cooling of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, would continue into the summer.

If the forecast holds true, global temperatures will not have risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

A small number of scientists doubt whether this means global warming has peaked and the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted, but Jarraud insists this is not the case and notes that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he told the BBC. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."

"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up."

Experts at the U.K. Met Office's Hadley Centre for forecasting in Exeter said the world could expect another record temperature within five years or less, the BBC reports, probably associated with an episode of El Nino.
Click to expand...

I love the rebuttal in bold. Apparently a steady 10 year trend, 10% of the observed time, is not indicative of anything.
 
Here is a very nice site that takes a long term view of climate change.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

It has some nice quotes as well, like these:

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)


"In the United States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."

former President Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations


Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...

former Vice President Al Gore
(now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management--
a London-based business that sells carbon credits)
(in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth)


"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming."

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT) (3)


"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)


"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)


"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."

Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.
After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs (4)
he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion "gift"


"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald
Click to expand...
 
If the forecast holds true, global temperatures will not have risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
Click to expand...

And yes, 10% of the time is far too small a window to look at when you're discussing global temperatures over long periods of time. Do you only look at 10% of gun crime statistics when arguing with antis or do you look at all the data to support your position? :rolleyes:
 
10 years is a perfectly adequate time frame to look at with regards to a trend in a 100 year period. Look at the preceding paragraph.

Note the FORECAST is not for 10 years of stable or decreasing temps but for a 10th year to follow 9 years of already stable or reducing temps.

Strange, we wish to trash the economy for a forecast 100+ years from now that has no agreement yet we look to discredit the forecast for this year (3 months into it already) to continue the trend of the preceding nine. Go figure.

It makes sense though, you cannot force change for personal reasons and line your pockets if you do not scare people and misrepresent the facts. That has already been proven.
 
Say it isn't so Red! I had you picked wrong.

Ehh, at least we both like guns
Click to expand...
what can I say, I'm a man of science :p it's a good thing this forum doesn't allow threads on evolution :D

but indeed, while I may disagree with nearly much everyone here on many issues I still like guns and I like them for the right reasons :cool:
 
what can I say, I'm a man of science
Click to expand...

Then he does agree that man's impact on the global climate has been vastly overstated and we are in a normal cycle. See, no problem.

Let's look at it this way, follow the money.

Man is the problem = Lot's of grant money, book money, gov't interference and control of money, phoney carbon credit money, etc.

Man is not the problem = No Money.

Scientists can be whores like any other profession.
 
10 years is a perfectly adequate time frame to look at with regards to a trend in a 100 year period. Look at the preceding paragraph.
Click to expand...
That's the point: no it's not.

The preceding paragraph

A small number of scientists doubt whether this means global warming has peaked and the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted, but Jarraud insists this is not the case and notes that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.
Click to expand...

So temperatures are still above average and
The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said it was likely that La Nina, an abnormal cooling of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, would continue into the summer.
Click to expand...
The cooling effect is from an abnormal weather phenomenon*. The temperatures are still higher than they should be.

Strange, we wish to trash the economy for a forecast 100+ years from now that has no agreement yet we look to discredit the forecast for this year (3 months into it already) to continue the trend of the preceding nine. Go figure.
Click to expand...
Really now? Exactly how is the economy being trashed? What about the climate change reports would damage the economy?

Oh and the article's comment on temperature is misleading. While 1998 is still the hottest year on record it doesn't mean that the trend was reversed. 2005 came pretty close and every other year has been right in the same neighborhood.

Ever consider that maybe some of the changes that have been made over the past couple of decades in regards to air pollution may have finally started to make a difference? ;)






*do dooo doodoo do...phenomenon
 
Then he does agree that man's impact on the global climate has been vastly overstated and we are in a normal cycle. See, no problem.
Click to expand...
No, I'm a man of science. We are not in a normal cycle though I will agree that the impact has been overstated by the politics of the matter. The science, on the other hand, is sound.

Let's look at it this way, follow the money.

Man is the problem = Lot's of grant money, book money, gov't interference and control of money, phoney carbon credit money, etc.

Man is not the problem = No Money.

Scientists can be whores like any other profession.
Click to expand...
Only unlike other professions it would require the hundreds of independent scientists working in related yet separate fields to be in cahoots with each other as well as all the scientific journals and other sources of peer review.

It'd be about as easy to fake the moon landing as it would to get the entire scientific community to agree to lie together. :rolleyes:
 
How about a wrench.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6178213.stm

Some 10,000 US researchers have signed a statement protesting about political interference in the scientific process.

The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy.

According to the American Union of Concerned Scientists, data is being misrepresented for political reasons.

It claims scientists working for federal agencies have been asked to change data to fit policy initiatives.

The Union has released an "A to Z" guide that it says documents dozens of recent allegations involving censorship and political interference in federal science, covering issues ranging from global warming to sex education.

Campaigners say that in recent years the White House has been able to censor the work of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration because a Republican congress has been loath to stand up for scientific integrity.

"It's very difficult to make good public policy without good science, and it's even harder to make good public policy with bad science," said Dr Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security.

"In the last several years, we've seen an increase in both the misuse of science and I would say an increase of bad science in a number of very important issues; for example, in global climate change, international peace and security, and water resources."

The statement was released at the American Geophysical Union's Fall Meeting. It is an annual gathering of Earth scientists.

Last year, it triggered a major row when a discussion here resulted in the renowned US space agency climate scientist Dr James Hansen later claiming he had come under pressure not to talk to the media on global warming issues.

Michael Halpern from the UCS said the statement of objection to political interference had been supported by researchers regardless of their political views.

"This science statement that has now been signed by the 10,000 scientists is signed by science advisers to both Republican and Democratic administrations dating back to President Eisenhower, stating that this is not business as usual and calling for this practice to stop," he told BBC News.

The Union said is was hopeful that the new Congress taking office in January would show a greater commitment to protecting the integrity of the scientific process.
 
Campaigners say that in recent years the White House has been able to censor the work of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration because a Republican congress has been loath to stand up for scientific integrity.
Click to expand...
Last year, it triggered a major row when a discussion here resulted in the renowned US space agency climate scientist Dr James Hansen later claiming he had come under pressure not to talk to the media on global warming issues.
Click to expand...
Dr Hansen, btw, is one of the leading proponents of man-made climate change. His prediction that we only have a decade before it's unstoppable is contentious, though.
 
I hope no one here is crazy enough to think the moon landing was faked!

Couldn't resist
Click to expand...
Yup, always a chance. :D That's what makes science so tricky, gotta be sharp enough to know when the chances of something are so small that it's laughable to even consider them.


Might as well make the argument that the Romulans are melting the ice caps. :cool:
 
I didn't know this:

U.N. Forecasters: Global Temperatures to Decrease - Friday, April 04, 2008
Average global temperatures in 2008 are forecast to be lower than in previous years, thanks to the cooling effect of the ocean current in the Pacific, U.N. meteorologists say.

The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said it was likely that La Nina, an abnormal cooling of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, would continue into the summer.

If the forecast holds true, global temperatures will not have risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

A small number of scientists doubt whether this means global warming has peaked and the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted, but Jarraud insists this is not the case and notes that 1998 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he told the BBC. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."

"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up."

Experts at the U.K. Met Office's Hadley Centre for forecasting in Exeter said the world could expect another record temperature within five years or less, the BBC reports, probably associated with an episode of El Nino.
Click to expand...
 
A fact does not require 100% certainty because such a thing is inherently impossible. In science nothing is truly proven, only supported or disproven.
Click to expand...

One has stated (can't remember the poster) that there's the Theory of Gravity. Well, to me, I'll bet everything that I own that gravity has, can, and will be proven. The "has" and "is" is already proven. I refute your statement by 100% proven results based on common sense that gravity exists in the future. Five minutes from now, let go of a tennis ball from your hand with no obstacles and it will drop to the floor. It's as simple as can be, yet one proof that common sense does dictate over the thought that in science nothing is truly proven....

You may not want to waste your time producing these reports but until you do your arguments are invalid.
Click to expand...

How wrong you are. Just because I don't want to include footnotes to everything that I have an opinion on, doesn't mean that my arguments are invalid compared to yours. Maybe I have many different sources of information (no, not Time mag) that I research to gather my own opinion and don't stick it on hard drive to prove every statement I say. It isn't worth my time. You either agree or disagree. It isn't my job to make you believe me by providing stats, etc.

Besides, it appears it's much easier for you to assert this since just about every single stance you have is based on ONE main source, the IPCC.

Quoted by me:
1. NOONE. Nobody knows what climate is normal.
2. NOONE. Just because nature isn't "intelligent" doesn't mean that it supposed to act/change a certain way that humans think it should.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. And I brought up the intelligence aspect because you referenced the part about mother nature's "intentions". That's not the same question as asking whether or not it's supposed to change in a certain way.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think you did. A consensus may have been formed, but the answer is still NO ONE knows what climate is normal. And where you got the link of me stating mother nature's intentions to being intelligent is really laughable. I think you and I both know it's a common phrase used in America and to be honest I don't think you can truly answer my questions directly.

So temperatures are still above average and
Click to expand...

...and tell us what the "average temperatures should be then...

No, I'm a man of science. We are not in a normal cycle though I will agree that the impact has been overstated by the politics of the matter. The science, on the other hand, is sound.
Click to expand...

Excellent! Now, tell us that the normal cycle is supposed to be...

Oh and the article's comment on temperature is misleading. While 1998 is still the hottest year on record it doesn't mean that the trend was reversed. 2005 came pretty close and every other year has been right in the same neighborhood.
Click to expand...

Putting your statement into basic logic would mean that, yes, it is pointing to a possible cool down. If 2005 was "pretty close" and every other year in the same neighborhood, then wouldn't that mean they were COOLER? Close or in the same neighborhood doesn't cut it when implying that it's getting WARMER, does it?
 
It'd be about as easy to fake the moon landing as it would to get the entire scientific community to agree to lie together.
Click to expand...

Faking a moon landing would be much, much cheaper, but it's only 'government money' that's involved.
 
Really now? Exactly how is the economy being trashed? What about the climate change reports would damage the economy?
Click to expand...

Following Kyoto and the other plans for the eco nuts out there would trash the economy of first world nations. Since their goal more and more seems to be wealth redistribution to the third world (who they leave unmolested by things like Kyoto) that makes perfect sense.

Oh and the article's comment on temperature is misleading. While 1998 is still the hottest year on record it doesn't mean that the trend was reversed. 2005 came pretty close and every other year has been right in the same neighborhood.

Ever consider that maybe some of the changes that have been made over the past couple of decades in regards to air pollution may have finally started to make a difference?
Click to expand...

If a series of numbers increases, reaches a peak, and then do not pass that peak it means the numbers are damn straight not increasing!

No, I don't think our reductions have done a damn globally. Development in places like China and India have been astounding and well beyond any projections. In addition the concept of "Environmentally Friendly" is practically non-existent in such nations. They though are left untouched by the rules of eco extortion the green fanatics would have us follow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top