Global Warming

[Super Nova]

I have only found articles talking about this 1-,12 years of cooling but no real expert site with any real scientific credibily to support this claim. That is why I have dismissed this as valid. The polar ice is still shinking in the last 12 years so I cannot believe this claim

I didn't realize you are religious SN. You have based your conclusion on faith and your thinking has been addled by preachers of that faith, so you didn't really look very hard

Would The Met Office meet your criteria of 'real scientific credibility'?

The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... g-not.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I see the arguement that CO2 is a small part ofthe attmosphere in terms of % and that even a large % increae is still fuck all.

I see graphs that show the relationship between gasses and there impact on warming. An incrase in CO2 does increase warming. However then I go to sites that I feel have scientific credibility and they say things like.

Research News

2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

Jan. 21, 2010

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

This map shows the 10-year average (2000-2009) temperature anomaly relative to the 1951-1980 mean. The largest temperature increases are in the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula. (Image credit: NASA/GISS)

Except for a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s, Earth's surface temperatures have increased since 1880. The last decade has brought the temperatures to the highest levels ever recorded. The graph shows global annual surface temperatures relative to 1951-1980 mean temperatures. As shown by the red line, long-term trends are more apparent when temperatures are averaged over a five year period. (Image credit: NASA/GISS)

As seen by the blue point farthest to the right on this graph, 2009 was the warmest year on record in the Southern Hemisphere. (Image credit: NASA/GISS)

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.

"There's always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year's ranking, but usually that misses the point," said James Hansen, the director of GISS. "There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated."

Link: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

So it doesn't reconcile with this 16 years of cooling claim.

While I see no evidence for this claim I remain skeptical.

Faith ...Science is based upon verifiable evidence I quote Richard Dawkins.

Given the dangers of faith — and considering the accomplishments of reason and observation in the activity called science — I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?"
Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists.

[IQS.RLOW]

Why are you citing a 2 year old article?
It is 2013 now and you are ignoring 2 years of additional information because of your confirmation bias

[Super Nova]

Here's one that is 3 years old and in the window of the 16 years cooling you claim.

The Arctic Perennial Sea Ice Could Be Gone by End of the Century
10.23.03

NASA study finds that perennial sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster than previously thought -- at a rate of 9 percent per decade. If these melting rates continue for a few more decades, the perennial sea ice will likely disappear entirely within this century, due to rising temperatures and interactions between ice, ocean and the atmosphere that accelerate the melting process.

Perennial sea ice floats in the polar oceans and remains at the end of the summer, when the ice cover is at its minimum and seasonal sea ice has melted. This year-round ice averages about 3 meters (9.8 feet) in depth, but can be as thick as 7 meters (23 feet). The study also finds that temperatures in the Arctic are increasing at the rate of 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 Fahrenheit) per decade.

RS, IQ,

Does your theory provide evidence that the Artic warming has reversed or stopped?

[IQS.RLOW]

The 16 year figure is relatively new so citing older articles as proof of it not occurring is illogical.

The simple fact of the matter is that there has been no statistical increase in warming for 16 years despite a 58% increase in CO2 output. The AGW proponents and scientist theories all predicted that this would not occur and warming would increase.

They were wrong.
Their theory is wrong.
You are wrong.

Fact.

[Super Nova]

Herte is an up-to-date information on the arctic. Does look like it's getting cooler to me. What happens at the poles is a key indicator of what is happening i nthe world as far as average temp goes. I see no cooling trend over the last 16 years.

Oscillation switches to negative phase
January 8, 2013

While it appears that a record low extent would have been reached even without the cyclone, thinning over the last several decades has made the ice more vulnerable to such storms, compared to earlier decades when the Arctic Ocean was dominated by thick, multiyear ice.

The annual average extent is now declining at a rate of -4.5 percent per decade relative to the 1979 to 2000 average and -4.6 percent per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. The 1981 to 2010 period is the 30-year climatology used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for their climate normals. Thirty years is a commonly-used period to define average or normal climate conditions. It is long enough to capture much climate variability, such as the different modes of the Arctic Oscillation, and short enough to be relevant for human timescales, such as agricultural cycles. NOAA updates its climate normals every ten years. For Arctic sea ice, use of the 1981 to 2010 period results in a lower extent than the 1979 to 2000 period, as seen in Figure 5, because the low extents of the last decade are included.

Record low ice extent was not the only remarkable event in the north. In June, Northern Hemisphere land snow cover set a new record for the least amount of snow cover in the 45-year record. A month later, the Greenland ice sheet experienced melt over more than 90 percent of its surface area, the largest melt extent recorded during the satellite data record.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[IQS.RLOW]

What you see and what you think is irrelevant.

It has not warmed for 16 years. Why do you deny this fact?

[Aussie]

Fuck....this is so exciting, reading wankers 'solve' an issue others far more qualified, cannot. Shut up...............please.

[Super Nova]

What you see and what you think is irrelevant.

It has not warmed for 16 years. Why do you deny this fact?

I do not believe this is a fact.

[Super Nova]

Fuck....this is so exciting, reading wankers 'solve' an issue others far more qualified, cannot. Shut up...............please.

Who on this site is an expert on anything posted here. Do you forget what the site is for Aussie.

[IQS.RLOW]

What you see and what you think is irrelevant.

It has not warmed for 16 years. Why do you deny this fact?

I do not believe this is a fact.

Ignorance does not negate facts

The Hadcrut 4 figures that show a ‘pause’ in warming lasting nearly 16 years are drawn from more than 3,000 measuring stations on land and at sea. Hadcrut 4 is one of several similar global databases that reveal the same thing: that since January 1997 there has been no statistically significant warming of the Earth’s surface.