What happened to global warming?

[LOGiK]

Not sure if this should be in news, if so I'm sure a kind moderator will move it...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

if this is a case of tl;dr then short version is:
Global Warming isn't happening at the moment and hasn't been for just over 10 years.

(Sorry if this is a repost, I did search and didn't find anything on it)

Edited by LOGiK on Tuesday 13th October 22:55

[EDLT]

Its not called global warming any more, its "climate change," that way they can tax us regardless of whether it gets hotter or colder.

[Toltec]

Global warming was re-branded as Climate Change some time ago to allow the supporters to campaign for stopping temperature changes whichever way they went.

Oops - Too slow

Edited by Toltec on Tuesday 13th October 23:29

[6655321]

"The met office say that warming is to resume"... Erm, so I presume that is using models that as of yet, have not been accurate for at least 11 years?

[JMGS4]

6655321 said:

"The met office say that warming is to resume"...

The met office can't even predict 3 DAYS weather in advance!
How anyone can give them the credibility of reporting/predicting many YEARS in advance is beyond me! Back to the glass ball/smoke and mirrors methinks.

[ludo]

LOGiK said:

Not sure if this should be in news, if so I'm sure a kind moderator will move it...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

if this is a case of tl;dr then short version is:
Global Warming isn't happening at the moment and hasn't been for just over 10 years.

(Sorry if this is a repost, I did search and didn't find anything on it)

Edited by LOGiK on Tuesday 13th October 22:55

article said:

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures

This is a well discussed topic, I am surprised the reporter didn't do a better job of researching it. skepticalscience.com is a good place to go and look up the other side of skeptic arguments (such as no warming since 1998)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-sto...

In short, global warming has continued, but ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) has caused a redistribution of heat energey between the oceans and the atmosphere. The comment is based on cherry picking the start date. If you use a start date one year earlier you see a modest warming trend, start it one year later and you see a modest warming trend (the exact magnitude depending on which datset you use), funny they don't mention that.

[RedLCRB0b]

ludo said:

In short, global warming has continued, but ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) has caused a redistribution of heat energey between the oceans and the atmosphere. The comment is based on cherry picking the start date. If you use a start date one year earlier you see a modest warming trend, start it one year later and you see a modest warming trend (the exact magnitude depending on which datset you use), funny they don't mention that.

Of course MMGW advocates would never cherry pick start dates to support their version of events would they...

Bob

[ludo]

RedLCRB0b said:

ludo said:

In short, global warming has continued, but ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) has caused a redistribution of heat energey between the oceans and the atmosphere. The comment is based on cherry picking the start date. If you use a start date one year earlier you see a modest warming trend, start it one year later and you see a modest warming trend (the exact magnitude depending on which datset you use), funny they don't mention that.

Of course MMGW advocates would never cherry pick start dates to support their version of events would they...

Bob

point out an example, I'll criticise it as well.

[RedLCRB0b]

ludo said:

RedLCRB0b said:

ludo said:

In short, global warming has continued, but ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) has caused a redistribution of heat energey between the oceans and the atmosphere. The comment is based on cherry picking the start date. If you use a start date one year earlier you see a modest warming trend, start it one year later and you see a modest warming trend (the exact magnitude depending on which datset you use), funny they don't mention that.

Of course MMGW advocates would never cherry pick start dates to support their version of events would they...

Bob

point out an example, I'll criticise it as well.

I'm sure turbobloke gave you plenty of examples in the other thread(s). Not having a dig at you with the comment, more the fact that both sides of the argument like to tailor the data to best fit their own argument. Personally, I don't believe anyone understands the science involved anywhere near well enough to be making the kind of predictions that are being made.

Bob

[ludo]

RedLCRB0b said:

ludo said:

RedLCRB0b said:

ludo said:

In short, global warming has continued, but ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) has caused a redistribution of heat energey between the oceans and the atmosphere. The comment is based on cherry picking the start date. If you use a start date one year earlier you see a modest warming trend, start it one year later and you see a modest warming trend (the exact magnitude depending on which datset you use), funny they don't mention that.

Of course MMGW advocates would never cherry pick start dates to support their version of events would they...

Bob

point out an example, I'll criticise it as well.

I'm sure turbobloke gave you plenty of examples in the other thread(s). Not having a dig at you with the comment, more the fact that both sides of the argument like to tailor the data to best fit their own argument. Personally, I don't believe anyone understands the science involved anywhere near well enough to be making the kind of predictions that are being made.

Actually, the scientists generally don't for the simple reason that it would be a career limiting move (at least if they did it in their published work). You get it in the media and the blogs rather a lot, which is why it is best to look up both sides of the argument before deciding what to believe http://skepticalscience.com is a good place to look, it lists all the major flawed skeptic arguments and http://woodfortrees.org is a good place to go and play with the data to see if there is cherry picking involved. Anyone interested in the climate change debate ought to use both sites regularly.

Having said which "but the other side cherry pick as well" is not an excuse for accepting an argument based on cherry picking. As I have said before the reason the skeptic camp is making so little headway in the real world is that they keep using cherry picked arguments, or arguments that are directly refuted by observations (see other thread) and as a result they are not taken seriously.

[RedLCRB0b]

Thanks for those links.

Bob

[Odie]

Climate change exists, its out their its not a scam, their are 4 of them, spring, summer, autumn & winter

HTH

[Parrot of Doom]

I'll believe the computer models of the environment when the same computers can reliably predict the stock market.