I can not vouch for this publication. I can not vouch for the scientists quoted herein I am unaware of the source of funds for the scientists making these claims I am unaware of the voting record of these scientists I have no idea if what they're saying is correct and have no way to independently test them. Nevertheless, with tail tucked, I post the following article by the edit/copy function afforded me by Internet Explorer: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/global-warming-pause.html Global Warming: On Hold? Michael Reilly Warming, What Warming? | Discovery News Video March 2, 2009 -- For those who have endured this winter's frigid temperatures and today's heavy snowstorm in the Northeast, the concept of global warming may seem, well, almost wishful. But climate is known to be variable -- a cold winter, or a few strung together doesn't mean the planet is cooling. Still, according to a new study, global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades. Earth's climate continues to confound scientists. Following a 30-year trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat. "This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950," Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. "Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn't have one." Instead, Swanson and colleague Anastasios Tsonis think a series of climate processes have aligned, conspiring to chill the climate. In 1997 and 1998, the tropical Pacific Ocean warmed rapidly in what Swanson called a "super El Nino event." It sent a shock wave through the oceans and atmosphere, jarring their circulation patterns into unison. How does this square with temperature records from 2005-2007, by some measurements among the warmest years on record? When added up with the other four years since 2001, Swanson said the overall trend is flat, even though temperatures should have gone up by 0.2 degrees Centigrade (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) during that time. The discrepancy gets to the heart of one of the toughest problems in climate science -- identifying the difference between natural variability (like the occasional March snowstorm) from human-induced change. But just what's causing the cooling is a mystery. Sinking water currents in the north Atlantic Ocean could be sucking heat down into the depths. Or an overabundance of tropical clouds may be reflecting more of the sun's energy than usual back out into space. "It is possible that a fraction of the most recent rapid warming since the 1970's was due to a free variation in climate," Isaac Held of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Princeton, New Jersey wrote in an email to Discovery News. "Suggesting that the warming might possibly slow down or even stagnate for a few years before rapid warming commences again." Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he warned that it's just a hiccup, and that humans' penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us. "When the climate kicks back out of this state, we'll have explosive warming," Swanson said. "Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive."
"I'm very neutral, I'm just going to post the 145th straight GW-denier oriented article in a row that I've posted, because scientists are smar, I don't know anything about nothing, and if you guys jump down my throats you're a bunch of big meanies who take things to seriously! And here's a smiley! " Let's skip that part of the routine. Why do you do this? Don't say "because want to learn" - you repeat the same pattern over and over again, and you only post GW denier-oriented articles, notwithstanding the legions of contrary material out there. If you honestly want to learn, go to realclimate.org. I've posted that link before but I doubt you've ever visited it.
I do it to make you smile, Sam. Also because it's part of my grand agenda. You play right in every time. On cue, even. I read the article...I posted it. I didn't find it at exxon.com. You can ignore the thread or continue to engage me with flippant responses from me....either way, I don't care.
Be sure you read www.newscientist.com (and others like it) after you read www.realclimate.org There are just as many websites on both sides. global warming is probabaly as politically driven as research driven IMHO
I'm convinced global warming is happening. I'm holding out hope that the end of the world by dustbowl isn't near, despite assertions to the contrary. The irony is...that's not even what this article is about. The people in this article aren't suggesting global warming isn't happening....only that it might be on hold.
Yeah we know. It's pretty obvious after 6 years of you doing the same tired act that you don't care about global warming and are posting this to troll because that is what you have done, and that's what you continue to do. Congratulations it worked! Good job at internetting. Five star thread.
Instead of just being a general jackass, can you tell me what problem you have with any assertion made in that article? I'm guessing you didn't read it. And yeah...I'm "trolling" global warming. Sam, that's precious.
rational discussion is not in vogue on this topic I'm not convinced of much on climate change except it's just as likely to be sun activity as man activity. I would give it 50-50 (about what I give the Rockets getting out of the first round of the playoffs, the Texans making the playoffs and the Astros having a decent year- 88+ wins)
The scientific community has turned into an ostrich brigade with the release of much new data that shows that the ice caps are not melting and that temperatures are not rising. Of course, we are in the midst of one of the coldest winters on record here in the US. The rubber is about to meet the road in terms of forcing Americans to pay for combatting 'global warming'. The question I would ask the board, as Obama pushes for a $20/ton carbon tax: Are you willing to increase your electricity bill by 30-40% in order to fight 'global warming' ? I am not. Particularly when you understand that China and India are increasing their emissions at a rate that more than wipes out any benefit of this carbon program.
Hilarious. First, we hear claims such as: Climatologists can't be right. Global warming may be happening, but look at their trivial historical record! The earth is billions of years old and you expect us to believe your predictions based on only 200 years of sure-fire data! (exclude ice cores) Contrast that with: It appears that seven years of data may indicate that GW is on "hold". I sincerely hope no one on this forum is so stupid as to not see the idiocy displayed above.
so what do we do with this?? "It is possible that a fraction of the most recent rapid warming since the 1970's was due to a free variation in climate," Isaac Held of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Princeton, New Jersey wrote in an email to Discovery News. "Suggesting that the warming might possibly slow down or even stagnate for a few years before rapid warming commences again." Do we know anything more about Isaac Held. I'm guessing if he works for the NOAA he knows more about climate science than I do...right?
I would postulate that massive melts in the arctic and antarctic sea ice are also major contributors to "blips" in the warming trend. I've read a few articles on that in some science journals before. Max, the effect of man-made carbon emissions is indisputable. We can argue over the relative effect compared to natural sources of warming, but even that is reasonably ancillary. There has never been a carbon spike of this magnitude. The prudent thing to do is take the conservative approach. Neatly, this approach will also dramatically improve just about every facet of civilization. Fossil fuels were a nice segway for advancement, but it's time to move on.
What are you talking about... this plan benefits more government. It's worth it. Just wait until gas prices go back up and we have a big tax increase on top of doubled prices. The best thing about it is this tax hurts everyone even the poor and downtrodden. We are trying to grow government AND shrink the deficit, that takes a lot of my money to get done. This is so exciting, I can't wait to hear whats next... when is the next public address?
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qzjbV-yTomY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qzjbV-yTomY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
You sir see very clearly the problem is size. 200 or 7, makes no difference, it's not a large enough sample. How is that hole in the ozone anyway?
1. I'm not sure it's ancillary...it's a matter of degree (pardon the pun!! - that was a pun right?) 2. I'm with you...I want cleaner technology for the sake of cleaner air, whether the sky is falling or not. There are tons and tons of benefits of moving to renewables, not the least of which is that we can stop shaping foreign policy around energy policy. 3. I read articles that suggest there's not much we can do about it...that it's dramatic and overwhelming and we've already killed the golden goose. I'm hopeful that it has slowed down for a few decades or so...because that may give us more time to deal with it. 4. Again, I have to point out....no one in this article is suggesting warming isn't happening.
