by the way... here is some facts... you should know before you answer stu pid.. and the whether has gotten coolers since this article. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/...d-16-years-ago/ UPDATE: Thereâs a response from the Met Office here A report in the UK Daily Mail reveals a Met Office report quietly released⦠and here is the chart to prove it: By David Rose The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures This means that the âpauseâ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996 The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week. The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures. This means that the âplateauâ or âpauseâ 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. The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 â a very warm year. Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased. Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions. Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at Americaâs prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were âdeeply flawedâ. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...l#ixzz29E78OR9H
hey jerk... You're the one with an OP claiming to be relying on 'NASA science'. I've posted what 'NASA science' says about CO2. You want me to post it again? "Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change. " Humans increasing CO2 IS long lived forcing of climate change. As a denier you must imagine that means Human CO2 IS NOT a long lived forcing of climate change thereby NOT causing global warming/cooling. You beggar belief. What the hell is "atmoshpere", "Vaper", "troposhere" You certainly can't spell and can't read either by the looks of things. Don't expect to do anything but attract fellow nutters to believe you understand a single thing you're saying. Lol what a dumb hypocrite you really are too, achieving all of your own predictions in one sentence. Jeez you are thick. You don't care about science. You pretend to, but will jerk about with stuff and deny whatever is said to you. Not even NASA science is acceptable to deniers. You're like flat earthers. Nothing will do that goes contrary to your stupid eccentric beliefs.
post some science with a link stu pid. most likely your opinion quote is based on models which have long since failed. I see no science showing man made co2 causing warming there do you.
by the way you misrepresenting piece of troll crap... here is the article. http://climate.nasa.gov/causes the quotes are all very hedged... not a shread of observation or scientific evidence showing man made co2 causing warming. and here is a quote... from your page... Solar irradiance It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system. Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps. But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun: Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly. If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Climate models that include solar irradiance changes canât reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases. and there is another link from your page... the 2007 IPCC report on warming. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf Whose model has now been discredited because as shown above we have not warmed for the last 17 years even the CO2 levels have gone up and that model was predicting warming.
lets face it I predicted you would produce no science showing man made co2 causes warming... and you have not... because you are a leftist troll. all you have to do is post a link to science showing man made co2 causes warming.. just show it troll.
How did you get so STUpid? So, you lost the God debate and now you are decided you would come lose the global warming debate? If you could read and understand what scientists say maybe what you are trying to say might make some sense. But you can't even understand what they are saying. I'm laughing at you as I read your post. Trace gases don't do much to the climate. It is becoming obvious that the climate is not sensitive to CO2 in the 4 parts per 10,000 amount. It's negligible, STUpid So, why don't you go help futurecunt blow his brother. You are just too STUpid to contribute to this thread. In other words, go fuck yourself.
You've been shown what NASA states about human CO2 and climate change. You made 'NASA science' the standard with an OP. You're denying NASA science. You're a denier. The science doesn't matter to you. You wish I lost the god debate but that's just one of your very few attributes, wishful thinking. The OP makes a reliance on NASA science, which ironically is not NASA science. I've posted what NASA science does clearly state. You want me to post it again? "Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change. " You're trying to say CO2 is NOT forcing climate change and climate change is NOT global warming? Come on cat's out the bag. It's clear you're not all there, you may as well directly deny the 'NASA science' too. You're a compulsive obsessive angry troll posting all day every day and starting thread after thread. If you're not being paid you have to be dumber than a bag of hammers anyway. No wonder you and jem are attracted to each other. No need to go fuck yourself though , you're already fucked.
No... I pointed out that NASA now admits CO2 is a coolant... that does not make them the standard or my standard of truth ro science on this subject... Once again no link to science just bullshit from you. Not the name "NASA Science" (you crafty troll) ... real science that shows man made co2 causes warming.
NASA admits no such thing. The climate change denier idiots from Principeea whatever, claimed NASA admits things they quite clearly do not. Solar reflection happens all the time and measurements return various values depending on intensity. NASA was reporting an intense period. Deniers re-interpret that into their own form of non-climate change utter horseshite which you fell for. Change the upper atmosphere by adding human CO2 / greenhouse gases, and you fuck about with the natural balance of things. Apart from NASA and just about everyone else showing how, itâs bleeding obvious. Consequences can be scientifically assessed which is what a majority of climatologists do with that nasty science stuff you don't want to hear about. You posted bullshit and set it as a standard to be taken as valid. Otherwise why post it at all, you idiot. Yes that "NASA Science" (you crafty troll) ... "Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration..." "This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change. " NASA