http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on? Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming. They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this? During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly. The Sun (BBC) Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun. But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences. The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature. And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees. He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures. He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month. If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject. Ocean cycles What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores. Pacific ocean (BBC) In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated. The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO). For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too. But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down. These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years. So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles. Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling." So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along. They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature. But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid. The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new. In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models. In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling. What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up. To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years. Iceberg melting (BBC) The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers. But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself. So what can we expect in the next few years? Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly. It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998). Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely. One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up. This is actually coming from the BBC which has always been supporters of the MMGW hoax. Now as the years go by and prediction after prediction by global warming cultist is proven to be incorrect the BBC is now trying to hedge their bets.
It has become "Climate Change" Once "cap and tax" becomes law, I would wager we will not hear about this global climate issue very much.
If Cap and Tax actually becomes law we will hear about global warming for the rest of lives, but in a different context than now. It will go like this "The world was heating and threatening us all until Obama pushed Cap and Trade through Congress which saved the world. If Cap and Trade didn't pass, the Earth would be 40 degrees warmer, the ocean would be 200 meters higher and 99 percent of the worlds species including humans would be extinct. Thank you Obama for saving the world."
Thank you for the correction..............as it seems that I forgot about the political tactic you allude to, sort of like: Q: What will Mr. Obama do about the skyrocketing unemployment rate ? A: I believe the correct thought is to give credit and adulation to Mr. Obama for the 83 million jobs saved. Next question..........
Scientists are communally stupid... guys like Einstein and the other physicists beat their brains out trying to explain things... then the radiotelescope came along and made it obvious that the Universe has a huge electromagnetic component... scientists are fighting the new guys that want to look at the electrical component tooth and nail even though the newer thinking generates very simple answers for things that scientists are still beating their brains out over... so now some guy is going to make a presentation where he talks about charged solar particles affecting the atmo... probably the audience will engage in extensive beard scratching as they try to figure out how this will affect their department, research budget, retirement, fear of being ridiculed... and proceed to trash the guy somehow... Immanuel Velikovsky was writing about the electromagnetic universe long before anybody else... what a guy... and he was looking at ancient myths and taking them at face value and finding much evidence that indeed, they are not myths at all... in reality he should go into the history books as one of the greatest scientists of all time maybe but he's relegated to the Popular Science area because he dared to question the Conventional Wisdom.. it's not any different today than Galileo's day... I've learned from all this, there is little use in fighting uphill against stupidity... Schlieman read the ancient myths, found Troy, looted the shit out of it and the academics are still villifying him... academics of the time refused to look at the ancient myths as factual and they lost the bet, they should stfu... they were second in that race, and as far as I'm concerned they are sniveling second place losers to this very day...
Nice analysis Maxpi. I simply do not buy the argument for MMGW because it is as Al Gore says "the consensus". There is a wide array of stimuli that effect the climate of the planet and anyone who says they understand it is either lying or has a rather large ego. As we have seen, these folks who claim to understand it, have failed miserably making any predictions about the future. The consenus is almost always wrong and it takes a scientist with brains and guts to go against the consensus. As you stated, Einstein and Galileo broke the consensus.
don't get me started ... I'll just say, don't expect the DemoRats to post the Cap-and-Tax bill online before it's voted on ... I'll also add ... if this bill does indeed become law, we'll be forever at the mercy of the fuckwits until the climate stabilizes ... which is never. it's hard for me to fully express how much I despise the half of this country, indeed the world, who parrots the mantra of "climate crisis". Thankfully, my mental health coverage will be free in a few more months.
A chart is worth a thousand global warming research dollars. I'm scared. Just look at the chart. The earth is burning up.
$#&^ing cavemen, driving their wheels (ala B.C.), causing global warming 10,000 years ago - it's a wonder that Mother Gia survived. High time we started taxing the bejezzus out of cavemen. Anything to get rid of those dumb Geico commercials.